Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Staffordshire Potteries Water Board Bill,

Rotherham Corporation Bill,

Halifax Corporation Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 21st July, and agreed to.

Wakefield Corporation Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; Amendments made.

Ordered, That Standing Orders 233 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Provisional Order Bills,

Ordered, That, in the case of the Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 8) Bill [Lords] and Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 9) Bill [Lords]. Standing Order 211 be suspended, and that the Committee on Unopposed Bills have leave to consider the Bills forthwith.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Midlothian (Calder District) Water Order Confirmation Bill,

Order [29th July] that the Bill be committed, read, and discharged.

Bill to be considered To-morrow.

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY (BEAM SYSTEM).

Copy ordered "of Indenture made the twenty-eighth day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-four, between Marconi's Wireless Telegraph Company, Limited, whose registered office is situate
at Marconi House, Strand, in the county of London (hereinafter called the Company) of the one part, and the Right honourable Vernon Hartshorn, O.B.E., M.P., His Majesty's Postmaster General (hereinafter called the Postmaster General) on behalf of His Majesty, of the other part, with reference to the construction of a wireless telegraph station on the Beam system, together with Copy of the Treasury Minute thereon."—[Mr. William Graham,]

Oral Answers to Questions — MEXICO (DEBT).

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will request the Government of Mexico to fulfil its obligations towards British subjects in accordance with the Mexican Government's debt agreement of June, 1922?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): This matter is one which concerns the United States and other Governments as well as His Majesty's Government. For the present I under stand that the International Bankers' Committee on Mexico are still in communication with the Mexican Government.

Mr. SAMUEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this concerns us a great deal more than the United States, that £100,000,000 or more of British savings, mostly those of poor people, is being held in Mexico, and that the Mexicans are well able to pay their obligations?

Sir FREDRIC WISE: Is it not a fact that half of the interest on this national debt has been paid?

Mr. SAMUEL: What steps is the Foreign Office taking? Is it supine, as usual, in these matters?

Mr. PONSONBY: So far as I know, no representations have been made to us to press the Mexican Government on this Subject.

Mr. SAMUEL: Will the hon. Gentleman accept this representation now?

Mr. ERSKINE: Is it a matter of complete indifference to the British Government whether British investors lose their money or not in foreign loans?

Mr. PONSONBY: No, Sir. His Majesty's Government are watching this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL ARMAMENTS (WASHINGTON CONVENTION).

Commander BELLAIRS: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any representations have been made to any of the signatories to the Washington Convention that the alteration of the elevation of the guns of capital ships or expenditure for the purpose of increasing their radius of action would be, in the opinion of the British Government, a breach of the Convention; and, if so, to what Powers were the communications addressed?

Mr. PONSONBY: The reply is in the affirmative.

Commander BELLAIRS: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the question?

Mr. PONSONBY: Representations have been made to the United States, and are being made to the Japanese Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

RUSSO-CAUCASIAN COMPANY, LIMITED.

Sir VICTOR WARRENDER: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Soviet authorities in Tiflis have informed the local manager of the Russo-Caucasian Company, Limited, that the decree published by the Soviet authorities on the 5th June ordering the Russo-Caucasian Company, Limited, to liquidate its business has not been suspended; and, in view of this fact, what action he now proposes taking in this matter?

Mr. PONSONBY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Moscow has been instructed by telegraph to urge the authorities at Moscow to telegraph instructions to Tiflis in the sense of the assurances given to Mr. Hodgson by the Commissariat of Foreign Affairs.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Soviet Government have given their reasons for suspending this business? Is it due to a desire to prevent private traders carrying on business?

Mr. PONSONBY: No, they have not given their reason.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will the hon. Gentleman press for the reasons?

CHINESE EASTERN RAILWAY (LOAN).

Sir LEONARD LYLE: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any proposal has been put for ward, officially or unofficially, by the Soviet Government for a loan in this country on the ultimate guarantee of the Chinese Eastern Railway; and whether, in view of the complications in Northern China in which any such step would involve Great Britain, the British Government will discountenance any such proposal?

Mr. PONSONBY: No such proposal has been put before His Majesty's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

OFFICERS (MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE).

Major HORE-BELISHA: 5.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state what progress has been made with the consideration of the granting of marriage allowance to officers in the Royal Navy; whether he is aware that this matter has been under consideration for many years; whether he will state the cause of the delay in arriving at a decision; and whether, in the event of a decision being reached to grant such marriage allowance, it will be retrospective to the date of the reduction in pay?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): I can only repeat what I have already stated in this House, that the matter is one of great complexity, but that there will be no delay in announcing a decision when one has been reached. As regards the last part of the question, the introduction of a marriage allowance is in no way connected with the automatic reduction in pay which took effect on the 1st
instant, and I am, therefore, unable to hold out any prospect that a marriage allowance, if granted, will be made retrospective.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many years it takes the Admiralty to solve a question of this kind?

Mr. AMMON: As far as this Government is concerned, it will probably be only a matter of months.

Captain Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, pending the lapse of months, naval officers will be getting into more and more difficult circumstances than ever, and running into debt in many cases?

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: 17.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what would be the estimated cost in a full year if marriage allowances were granted to officers of the Royal Navy on the same scale as those granted to officers of His Majesty's Army?

Mr. AMMON: Based on present numbers, the estimated cost for officers of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines is £750,000 a year. This estimate includes 1,925 commissioned officers from warrant rank and warrant officers who have been taken at the same rate as other officers.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware we are spending eight times that amount in Iraq alone?

BREAD (MALTA VICTUALLING YARD).

Mr. HANNON: 6.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the cost of bread baked in the Navy victualling yard at Malta was equivalent in 1922–23 to 1s. 0½d. per quartern loaf; and whether this high cost was due to any special local circumstances?

Mr. AMMON: The high cost of the bread baked during the year mentioned was due to the fact that the victualling yard was using up reserves of wheat purchased at a time when prices were considerably higher than those ruling when the wheat was milled. The wheat is valued out in the costings accounts at its actual cost.

SLAVE TRAFFIC (RED SEA AND PERSIAN GULF).

Mr. J. HARRIS: 9.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what ships under the Admiralty are now stationed in the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf with the object of dealing with the slave traffic?

Mr. AMMON: Two sloops are stationed in the Red Sea and two sloops and one special service vessel in the Persian Gulf. The prevention of slave traffic by sea is part of their normal duty. One of the Red Sea sloops is now temporarily at Malta for refit.

ROYAL DOCKYARDS (RUSSIAN ORDERS).

Major HORE-BELISHA: 12.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Russian Government has great engineering requirements for which it desires to place orders in this country; and whether he can make arrangements to fulfil any of these requirements in the Government establishments under his Department?

Mr. AMMON: The Royal Dockyards are at present fully employed in meeting naval requirements.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Can my hon. Friend say why it is that so many discharges have taken place from the dockyards since the present Government came into office?

Mr. AMMON: The discharges are of those who were recruited for War service and were gradually being demobilised.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Were they not recruited for the General Election purposes of the last Government?

Mr. THURTLE: Is it not a fact that this Government stands for disarmament?

Mr. AMMON: The gradual reduction of the War staff is an indication of our progress in that direction.

BULL POINT DEPOT (WAR SERVICE).

Major HORE-BELISHA: 13.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty with reference to the Treasury Regulation, dated 11th August, 1914, on the subject of the civil pay of civil servants called up for service with the naval and military forces, and its bearing upon the claim of three employés at the Royal
Naval Armament Depot at Bull Point, who enlisted on 28th November, 1914 (only 12 days before reaching 20 years of age), under conditions specified in this Regulation, which states that they would be eligible for increment on a civil salary, whether he will see that these employés are paid such sums as they would have received throughout their service had they waited for 12 days before joining up, and that their appointments as labourers are ante-dated to their twentieth birthdays, seeing that, had it not been for this Regulation, which gave them to understand that they would receive the normal increments of salary during their service, they could have deferred their enlistment and have been paid throughout their service as adults?

The CIVIL. LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Hodges): It is not possible to apply to these employés, while they were serving in the Forces, rates of wages other than those appertaining to the grade in which they were serving at the time of their enlistment. The service of boys, other than apprentices, is reckonable for superannuation purposes from the age of 16; apart, therefore, from the question of pay, there is no purpose in ante-dating the appointments as labourers to the twentieth birthdays, time served with the colours being reckonable for the purposes of civil superannuation in cases where men were employed by the Admiralty in a civilian capacity prior to the War and returned to their work in the yards immediately on demobilisation.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Does not my hon. Friend consider that a scandalous breach of contract has been committed towards these boys, who were asked to join up and told they would lose no increment in their salary by so doing, and who, upon that understanding, joined up 12 days before they were qualified as adult labourers?

Mr. HODGES: That is just the difficulty. It is not a breach of contract; the conditions are embodied in the regulation.

CADETS (FEES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 16.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any decision has been reached by the Board with reference to the abolition of fees for naval cadets, as
in the case of the American and Japanese Navies?

Mr. AMMON: The matter is still under consideration.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication of the date when the decision will be arrived at?

Mr. AMMON: I am afraid I cannot, but I hope it will not be very far distant.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Before the House rises?

Major HORE-BELISHA: Is this matter one of such baffling complexity as the question of marriage allowances?

Commander BELLAIRS: Can the hon. Gentleman state the cost?

ROYAL DOCKYARDS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 18.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if the inter-Departmental Committee which has been examining the question of the utilisation and position of the Royal dockyards has made any progress; whether a Report will be made available for Members and, if so, when?

Mr. AMMON: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply of the 14th May.

NAVAL REVIEW (GUESTS).

Sir ALFRED BUTT: 19.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the arrangements made for Members of Parliament to witness the Naval Review were quite inadequate, and that the accommodation. provided was insufficient and unsuitable for ladies who accompanied Members of Parliament; why other guests of the Government were provided with superior accommodation on the "Princess Marguerite"; and whether in future he will take steps to arrange for Members of Parliament to have accommodation equal to that provided for other Government guests after the Cabinet and the Lords- of the Admiralty, even if this necessitates a charge in excess of £1 per head?

Mr. AMMON: I regret that the economies imposed upon the naval Service made it impossible to provide accommodation for guests upon the scale of former reviews, when special vessels
were chartered. As the hon. Member is aware, the cost of the arrangements could not be borne upon Navy Votes, and only such sum as could be spared from the Government Hospitality Fund was available. Indeed, in the interests of public economy, the Admiralty endeavoured to limit the sum to be expended lo a very low figure, and it may be that, in the attempt subsequently to find room for as many as possible of the distinguished visitors from overseas now in this country, the mark was somewhat overshot, with the result that some discomfort may have been experienced. The fact that only one large ship was available made it unavoidable that the accommodation for guests should be unequal. I may say that reports are being collected as to the experience of all the arrangements for the review, and, no doubt, as the result of the information they contain, it will be possible to avoid next time some grounds which may have existed for complaint on the present occasion.

Mr. HOGGE: Why were facilities not afforded on this occasion to Members to see over the Fleet, and why were we confined to viewing the Fleet, which was not in the least interesting?

Mr. AMMON: I only heard of that fact to-day, and I rather regret there was some limitation in that respect.

Sir A. BUTT: Why were the guests of the Government considered superior to Members of this House; and if there was, as the hon. Gentleman states, only sufficient money to charter one large ship, why were Members of the House relegated to tugboats equipped with chairs from Southsea beach, with the result that the ladies of the party would have been drenched had there been rain?

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any obligation on the Government to provide accommodation for Members of Parliament on these occasions?

Mr. AMMON: With regard to the first supplementary question of the hon. Member for Balham and Tooting (Sir A. Butt), I imagine all Members of the House would support the Government in doing the best they could for our distinguished overseas visitors. With
regard to the other questions, I have already explained that was due to the limits which had to be observed. I may add that I have had many expressions of appreciation from visitors.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "MAINE."

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 20.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he can give the Admiralty reason for recommissioning H.M.S. "Maine" with Maltese ratings in the face of the unemployment at home?

Mr. AMMON: The hospital ship "Maine" is employed in Mediterranean waters for prolonged and indefinite periods, and the crew is required to sign a two-years' agreement. Experience has shown that seamen from home do not reconcile themselves to these conditions, and that Maltese ratings are the more satisfactory, principally because of the fact that they have opportunities of visiting their homes occasionally. The rates of pay received by the Maltese ratings, who also are British subjects, are the same as would be paid to seamen born in the United Kingdom.

Sir B. FALLE: Is there any unemployment in Malta?

Mr. AMMON: I should have notice of that question.

GREAT BRITAIN AND JAPAN (NAVAL PROGRAMMES).

Commander BELLAIRS: 7.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many destroyers and submarines are building and how many projected in the British Empire and Japan, excluding vessels not yet sanctioned by Parliament?

Mr. AMMON: The British Empire has three destroyers (including flotilla leaders) building and two projected, and Japan eight building and 18 projected. As regards submarines the figures for the British Empire are seven building and none projected, and for Japan 11 building and 20 projected. I regret that in my reply of the 28th July to the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) I stated incorrectly that the number of destroyers building for the British Empire was five. The correct figure is three, as stated above.

Commander BELLAIRS: 8.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many cruisers are building and how many projected in the British Empire and Japan, respectively, excluding vessels not yet sanctioned by Parliament?

Mr. AMMON: The figures for the British Empire are four building and five projected, and for Japan five building and six projected.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

WASH (RECLAMATION WORKS).

Lieut. -Colonel HOWARD - BURY: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour how many acres it is proposed to reclaim in the Wash; and what is the estimated cost per acre?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. R. Smith): The area at present proposed to be reclaimed is about 320 acres, and it is estimated that the cost will be about £50 per acre.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: What price is to be charged for this land, and to what crops is it suited?

Viscount CURZON: Has anybody yet started work?

Mr. SMITH: I could not say. If work has not yet started, it will be started very shortly. As regards the other supplementary question, the value of the land can only be determined after reclamation.

Captain BRASS: How many unemployed will be set to work?

Viscount WOLMER: Is it true that the tender is being let out to a private firm?

Mr. W. THORNE: How many years has this scheme been under consideration?

Grants made in respect of interest and interest and sinking fund charges on loans.


Period.
Schemes approved during the period.
Payments actually made in period.


Total Cost.
Loans ranking for grants over periods up to 15 years.




£
£
£


1st January, 1922–30th June, 1922
…
8,989,171
8,657,785
400


1st January, 1923–30th June, 1923
…
5,764,458
4,354,355
95,268


1st January, 1924–30th June, 1924
…
8,440,828
7,733,298
332,296

UNCOVENANTED BENEFIT (LONDON).

Mr. BARNES: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will submit a Return to the House showing the average percentage per 1,000 of unemployed persons refused uncovenanted benefit in London and Greater London, on the ground that they are not genuinely seeking employment; and whether he will also state the names of the districts which exceed the average of persons refused, together with the total number of persons on the register, the total number refused, and the percentage per 1,000?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Shaw): I will, as soon as possible, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT giving as much of the desired information as is available.

Mr. BARNES: Has the Minister not got the figures to submit to the House?

LOCAL AUTHORITIES' SCHEMES (GRANTS).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 69.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of the grants made by the Unemployed Grants Committee to local authorities to assist unemployment works schemes during the first six months in each of the last three years?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate a full statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. THOMSON: In view of the bearing of these figures on the Debate to-day, will the hon. Gentleman give the three figures asked for?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am afraid it would be misleading to do so, but I will put the hon. Member in possession of the Return before the Debate takes place.

Following is the statement:

Grants made on the basis of 60 per cent. of the wages bill for unemployed men.


Period.
Schemes approved during the period.
Payments actually made in period.


Total Cost.
Grant indicated.




£
£
£


1st January, 1922–30th June, 1922
…
211,797
89,744
650,222


1st January, 1923–30th June, 1923
…
1,937,353
532,352
200,571


1st January, 1924–30th June, 1924
…
1,001,733
302,962
319,340

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL SCHEME, WANDSWORTH.

Viscount CURZON: 25 and 26.
asked the Minister of Health (1) whether, before giving his approval to the erection by the London County Council of five-story dwellings containing about 537 tenements, with accommodation for over 3,200 persons on a site of about eight acres at East Hill, Wandsworth, a scheme involving the erection of approximately 67 houses to the acre (based on the ruling of his Department that in calculating the number of houses per acre each tenement is to count as a house), his attention was drawn by the Wandsworth Ratepayers' Association to the Ministry of Health Circular 3,886 of 15th March, 1924, expressing the opinion that the density of approximately 12 houses to the acre represented a desirable standard, and that, as a general rule, a local authority should not approve the building of more than 20 houses on any one acre, and also to the Ministry's manual on unfit houses and unhealthy areas, in which it is stated that the self-contained cottage system would be the normal policy of the Ministry of Health; and, if so, whether the Ministry of Health now propose to allow local authorities to disregard the requirements of Circular 3,886 as regards the density of houses per acre, or whether an amended circular will be issued for the future guidance of local authorities;
(2) on what grounds he gave his approval to the erection of blocks of five-storey tenement buildings on the East Hill, Wandsworth, housing estate of the London County Council, and to the construction of roads of a less width than 40 feet and of a steeper gradient than one in 20, which are the minima prescribed by the London Building Act, 1894, seeing
that serious local objections have been raised to the London County Council's proposals?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Wheatley): The scheme in question was approved before I assumed office. I understand it is the intention of the London County Council to use this site as a rehousing site in connection with schemes for the clearance of insanitary areas. In view of the scarcity of suitable sites for rehousing in the county of London, and of the altitude and open situation of the site in question between the river and a large common, it was considered that some departure from normal standards could be justified. This decision was reached after full examination of the objections raised, including those to which the Noble Lord refers.

Viscount CURZON: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that the present Government have no responsibility for what has been done?

Mr. WHEATLEY: The answer simply means what I said—that the decision was made before I assumed office.

BRICKLAYERS (TRAINING).

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 28.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can state the arrangements he has made concerning the facilities to be given whereby bricklayers' labourers may rapidly become fully-fledged craftsmen; and whether the trade unions concerned are a party to any such arrangements?

Mr. WHEATLEY: The National House Building Committee, on which both employers and operatives are represented, propose in their Report to give special consideration in the development of their apprenticeship scheme to applicants such as building trade labourers who have had previous experience of the building trade.

Sir K. WOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think this matter is being left in a very vague way; does he not think it desirable to approach the building trade again in the matter?

Mr. WHEATLEY: No, I do not think so.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is it not a fact that the London County Council had a scheme on hand for the employment of skilled labourers to teach them bricklaying, before the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Bill; and what has happened to that scheme?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am afraid that is a matter for the London County Council.

Sir K. WOOD: 29.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can now make a statement as to the arrangements he has made with the educational authorities for the training of apprentice bricklayers; whether the period of apprenticeship will be thereby curtailed; and whether he can give any estimate of the number of returned emigrants that may be expected to return to the building industry during the next 12 months?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am not yet in a position to make a statement as to arrangements with educational authorities. It is obviously impossible to frame any estimate of the number of emigrants likely to return within the next 12 months.

Sir K. WOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think this also leaves it in a very vague way? Is it not time to approach the building trade in the matter?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am not in a position to make a statement.

Mr. HOGGE: Is some effort being made to teach bricklayers to build houses?

AGRICULTURAL PARISHES.

Mr. E. BROWN: 32.
asked the Minister of Health how many of the 247 villages in the administrative county of Warwick are now ineligible for the extra subsidy under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill, as amended; and what are their names?

Mr. WHEATLEY: It appears from the latest available information that the number of parishes in rural districts in the administrative county of Warwick
which are not "agricultural" within the meaning of Clause 2 (2) of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill as amended is 46. I am sending the hon. Member a list of these parishes.

Mr. BROWN: 33.
also asked the Minister of Health the proportion or number of villages in rural districts now ineligible as agricultural parishes for the extra subsidy under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill, as amended?

Mr. WHEATLEY: It is estimated that approximately 20 per cent, of the parishes in rural districts in England and Wales are not agricultural within the meaning of Clause 2 (2) of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill, as amended.

BUILDING LABOUR.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 34.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that the success of the new housing scheme is contingent upon the supply of labour available, and of the great importance, therefore, of attracting a large number of apprentices, he will give encouragement to a scheme which will include a guaranteed week?

Mr. WHEATLEY: The question of the adoption of a guaranteed week is one for settlement by the industry itself. I understand, however, that, before the present dispute, arrangements had been made within the industry to refer the question of payment for wet time for negotiation and settlement.

Lieut.-Colonel HORLICK: 35.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received any assurance from the leaders of the trade unions representing the building trade operatives that every encourage ment will be given to the employment of unskilled labour in the construction of houses made of concrete, steel, or timber; and whether, in the future, their opposition to the development of new methods of construction will be withdrawn?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I have not received specific assurances on this point; but I have no reason to anticipate that labour representatives will place any obstacles in the way of securing satisfactory houses of any description.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS.

LOUD SPEAKERS.

Sir THOMAS BRAMSDON: 38.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if, with a view of improving the acoustic properties of the House, and of enabling the Members and visitors the better to hear the answers to questions and the speeches generally, he will consider the advisability during the Recess of fitting loud speakers in the House, so that Members and visitors may properly understand and appreciate the subject of those answers and speeches?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Jowett): The acoustics of the Chamber are such that Members-can usually hear one another if they so desire. I am aware of possible difficulties in the Visitors' and Reporters' Galleries, but I doubt whether hon. Members would approve of the installation, either on the Table or in other parts of the Chamber, of the microphones which would be necessary, in addition to the loud speakers.

PANEL PICTURES (LADY ASTOR).

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: 40.
asked the First Commissioner of Works when and by whom the decision was taken to place a painting of the introduction into the House of the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) on the walls of this House; and if he will take the sense of the Members of this House on the subject before the project is further proceeded with?

Mr. CLARRY: 41.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether a picture representing the introduction of the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth is to be hung in the precincts of Westminster; and upon whose authority is this to be done?

Mr. JOWETT: The decision referred to was given by my predecessor in June of last year, but having regard to the numerous objections received during the last few days from Members of all parties, I cannot consent to its being finally hung without further expressions of approval. I propose to leave the picture temporarily in position until I have had a further opportunity of ascertaining the general opinion of Members.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if he will give this House an early opportunity of showing its opinion upon this project, and if that early opportunity will be given us before we rise for the Recess?

Mr. JOWETT: That is a question that should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

Mr. LINFIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the views of many thousands of women in this country on the subject?

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I ask the Prime Minister if he is prepared to give this House time before the Recess to signify its approval or otherwise of this project?

Sir JOHN BAIRD: As the picture was put up after you and I had consulted, Mr. Speaker, as to the desirability of commemorating what appeared to us both to be a very important step in the development of our national Parliamentary institutions—

HON. MEMBERS: Speech!

Sir J. BAIRD: —may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will take steps to see that full time is given for the consideration of this question, and that it is not decided in consequence of prejudice or ignorance?

Mr. JOWETT: I indicated in my original reply that I would give time.

Mr. G. SPENCER: Is not the opposition to the picture due to the fact that the lady happens to be an American rather than an Englishwoman?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not due to the fact that she is not the first lady Member of this House, but the Countess Markievicz is?

Mr. FOOT: Will the right hon. Gentleman have regard to the fact that there is already in St. Stephen's Hall a picture which does depict curtain living statesmen and politicians?

Mr. JOWETT: All relevant considerations will be taken into account.

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I, very respectfully, press the Prime Minister for an answer to the question which I put to him, as to whether facilities will be given before the Recess?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): Obviously, this is a matter which ought to be dealt with in the most decent and proper way possible. We will do our best to do that.

HADRIAN'S WALL.

Major CHURCH: 39.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the suggestion to restore certain parts of Hadrian's Wall; and whether he will give his earnest consideration to the project, seeing that it-would provide work for a certain number of unemployed, under skilled supervision, and at the same time present to the nation a memorial of great historical and educational interest?

Mr. JOWETT: I can assure the hon. Member that a project of this kind would be viewed with the greatest sympathy by my Department. There is, however, no part of the wall in the charge of the Department, and, under the existing legislation dealing with ancient monuments, the Department is not empowered to spend money on repairs or excavations at monuments not in its charge.

Viscount WOLMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the object of this wall was to keep the Scots out of England?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: And, like most things English, it was a miserable failure!

Major CHURCH: Has not the Minister power, under the Act, to schedule these ancient monuments, if he can ascertain in whose care they are, so as to demand of the owners of the monuments that they should keep them in repair?

Mr. JOWETT: If I have any further powers than I have been advised, they shall be taken into consideration.

Captain ELLIOT: May we have an assurance from the Minister that at least the wall shall not be used for its original purpose, and may I ask further whether, the wall having failed so lamentably in its original purpose, its restoration may not have the effect of retaining a number of Scotsmen here whom the Minister would desire to see go back?

Mr. JOWETT: I have no intention of keeping them on this side.

Mr. J. HARRIS: If the right hon. Gentleman does consider any reconstruction of the wall, will he incorporate in it the Stone of Destiny?

BIRTH CONTROL.

Mr. THURTLE: 31.
asked the Minister of Health if he will consider the desirability of allowing local authorities to impart to people who wish to obtain it information as to birth control methods without penalising such local authorities by withdrawing their maternity and child welfare grants?

Mr. WHEATLEY: My view is that the institutions provided by local authorities at the cost of public funds should not be used for purposes such as that referred to in the question, which are the subject of controversy, without an express direction from Parliament.

Mr. THURTLE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a very large conference of Labour women passed unanimously a resolution in favour of this course?

Miss JEWSON: Is the Minister aware that many working-class women attending these welfare centres are unfit to bear children and to bring up healthy children, and the doctors know they are unfit, and yet they are unable to give this information, which any upper or middle-class woman can obtain from a private doctor; and will he consider the bearing of this on the question of abortion, which is so terribly on the increase in this country?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I submit that these are all suggestions and arguments which might be put to Parliament if it were considering new directions, but it is only my business to carry out the instructions received.

POOR LAW (NON-RESIDENT RELIEF).

Mr. MARCH: 37.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the breaking-up of homes of persons in receipt of Poor Law assistance caused by the action of certain boards of guardians in refusing
to authorise non-resident relief, he will consider the advisability of remedying this evil either by administrative Order or by legislation?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on the 17th July to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. C. Edwards) in reply to a similar question.

IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LIMITED.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 42.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that Sir H. Hambling and Major Hills wire nominated by His Majesty's Government as directors of Imperial Airways, Limited; whether the prospectus was sanctioned by the Government; and, if so, why Article 4 of the company's articles contradicted the terms of the prospectus, in that it stated that the purchase price payable was £148,750, based on the Report of Brigadier-General Bagnall Wild and Lieut.-Colonel Mervyn O'Gorman, nominated by the Air Ministry and Lloyds; whether he is aware that the prospectus states that there were no promotion profits, while Article 4, though not referred to in the prospectus, binds subscribers not to object to the agreement mentioned in such article, and removes liability of a promoter or director to account for any benefit derived by him by mason of any promoter or director of the company being a vendor to it, or by reason of purchase consideration having been fixed by the vendors without any independent valuation, or of the board not being an independent board; and what is the reason for barring the rights of subscribers against a promoter or director without giving notice in a prospectus of the proposed waiver?

The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Leach): As regards the first part of the question, the answer is in the affirmative. As regards the remaining parts, the Government were not concerned with the terms of the prospectus, except to see that it did not misrepresent the arrangement between the Government and the company.

Mr. SAMUEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this prospectus breaks one of the prime commercial canons, and that
it is very wrong that a Government Department should show so bad an example in being party to a practice in the issue of a prospectus which is regarded as undesirable?

Mr. LEACH: The only business of the Government was to ascertain how far the prospectus met the arrangement which has been made between the company and the Government, and in no respect that we could discover did it transgress. So far as any other consideration is involved, I think that is a matter for the shareholders.

LEGITIMACY BILL.

Captain BOWYER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Govornment will give special facilities to the Legitimacy Bill so that it may become law as soon as possible?

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that it is not possible to give special facilities for this Bill.

Captain BOWYER: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that this Bill received Third Reading in another place yesterday, and that the only step wanting is the consideration of the Lords Amendments, every one of which the promoters are prepared to accept It would not take five minutes.

The PRIME MINISTER: I would be very glad, indeed, to reconsider the decision, if this decision has been come to on imperfect information, but, according to the information which I have received, the position of the Bill still remains very controversial, and a considerable amount of time, would be required in order to get it through. I will be very glad indeed to have representations to show me that that is wrong.

Captain BOWYER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the promoters of the Bill are prepared to accept everything of a controversial nature, and to agree to every Amendment, which before they disagreed with?

The PRIME MINISTER: No representations to that effect have been made to me. If the opponents and the promoters of the Bill will come to an agreement, and assure me it is the right one, and satisfy me it is the right one, and
that the House will agree to it without much discussion, I will reconsider the answer that I have just given.

BUILDING MATERIALS (CHARGES AND SUPPLY) BILL.

Sir K. WOOD: 46.
asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Building Materials (Charges and Supply) Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: This Bill will be one of the first Measures that the Government will invite the House to consider on its re-assembling in the autumn.

Sir K. WOOD: Has the Prime Minister read the speech which the Attorney-General made this week on this matter? Does he agree with him that the matter is urgent? Why is it being delayed?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have got a great many speeches to read in my holidays.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (PRICES).

Viscount WOLMER: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is any part of the policy of his party to guarantee a fair price to the farmer for his produce; and, if so, how and when he proposes to give effect to it?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Independent Labour Party, which is a section of the Labour party, has been working for some time at the problem of stabilising agricultural prices, and has made some proposals on the subject, but they have not yet been officially adopted by the Labour party, though the party is much interested in the matter.

Viscount WOLMER: Are we to understand from that reply that the pledges now being given at the Spalding by-election are only like the Tanker-officer pledge and the unemployment pledge?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware that there has been any pledge.

Captain FITZROY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question of guaranteed prices is a matter of first-class importance, and that one of the candidates at the by-election, which is at
present proceeding, has announced it as part of the Government policy? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to support the policy of this candidate or not?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed that that is not so. The subject, as I have said in my answer, is engaging very careful consideration, and certain sections of the Labour party have made up their minds about that. Beyond that it has not gone. The Government have an open mind on the subject.

Mr. PATTINSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the promise was made in the candidate's address as well as in the circular?

Sir L. LYLE: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he sticks to the statement which he made in February, that under no circumstances will the Labour party give either a bounty or a subsidy?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

TRAFFIC CONGESTION, EAST LONDON.

Mr. BARNES: 48.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the traffic congestion which prevails at Aid-gate; if he is aware that the traffic difficulties at this spot are aggravated by the number of hay-carts which congregate there during the busiest hours in the morning; and whether he will undertake an inquiry for the purpose of improving the traffic arrangements at the Aldgate crossing?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): I am fully aware of the facts recited by the hon. Member. They constitute a metropolitan traffic problem of great importance, on which I hope to obtain the advice of the Committee which it is sought to establish under the London Traffic Bill.

Mr. BARNES: Can we assume from the Minister's statement that when the Traffic Committee is established, this will be the subject of an inquiry?
49. The hon. Member further asked the Minister whether he is aware of the amount of traffic, pedestrian and vehicular, passing from the Manor Way, East Ham, to North Woolwich and South Woolwich and vice versa, and the delay and inconvenience caused by the number
of bridges across the docks and the ferry journey; and whether he will institute an inquiry as speedily as possible into the traffic facilities for this part of London, with the object of ascertaining whether a tunnel for pedestrian and vehicular traffic is possible at this place, or what other arrangements can be made for the greater convenience of the public?

Mr. GOSLING: I am aware of the traffic conditions prevailing in the neighbourhood of the Woolwich ferry, and consider the matter one which could appropriately be referred for consideration to the Committee which it is sought to establish under the London Traffic Bill.

ROAD SURFACES.

Captain BRASS: 51.
asked the Minister of Transport if any contracts are in course of completion or have recently been signed for new roads with a surface similar to that of the new Great North Road south of Wansford; and, if so, whether he can see his way to cancel such contracts, having regard to the fact that roads with a smooth surface of that kind are highly dangerous to motor traffic in wet weather?

Mr. GOSLING: I am not in possession of particulars of contracts entered into for the surfacing of new roads throughout the country, nor have I power to cancel such contracts. Instructions have, however, been give to the engineering staff of my Department to call the attention of highway authorities to the matter?

Captain BRASS: Is it not a fact that when the Ministry of Transport provide funds for these roads, they have to go into these contracts, and find out what they cost?

Viscount CURZON: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not going to allow his Department to stand by while the lives and limbs of people are disked owing to the surface of these roads? [Interruption.] They are lorry-workers, who have to earn their living.

Captain BRASS: 52.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can inform the House of any experiments carried out by his Department on the new Great North Road after rain, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the road surface in wet weather?

Mr. GOSLING: No experiments have been conducted by my Department on this length of road, but arrangements are being made for the trial of certain expedients designed to imp rave the foothold under adverse weather conditions?

Captain BRASS: Can the hon. Gentleman say what sort of experiments are going to be made, and whether they are going to be made with motor cars, and also with horse-drawn vehicles?

Mr. GOSLING: The difficulty is that the opportunity of making experiments is very limited, because I have not yet very much power, but the experiments will be made by experts.

Captain BRASS: Surely the hon. Gentleman has enough power for his Department to be able to make experiments on the Great North Road now?

FOREIGN STEEL (IMPORTS).

Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 53.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the total number of millions of tons of foreign steel imported into this country in the first six months of 1923 and the first six months of 1924?

Mr. LUNN (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The imports into the United Kingdom of iron and steel and manufactures thereof, registered during the first six months of 1923 and 1924, amounted to 665,237 and 1,171,621 tons respectively. It is not possible to state the precise quantities of steel goods included in these totals, but they may be estimated at about 430,000 tons in the first six months of 1923 and 760,000 tons in the first six months of 1924. I ought to add that the figures include imports from His Majesty's Dominions and India.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: In view of this great increase, is it not the fact that if we lend £40,000,000 to Germany there will be a still greater increase of these imports into this country, unless we change our fiscal policy in regard to the steel trade?

Mr. REMER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the docks at Antwerp are absolutely congested with goods waiting to come here, still further to depress the markets in this country?

Sir F. WISE: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many steel workers are out of employment?

Mr. H. SPENCER: If these foreign steamers are waiting to come to this country, is it not a fact that they will bring steel for the purpose of the British workers working up that steel, and making money out of it? Is the steel for them to eat?

SEAVIEW, ISLE OF WIGHT (FORESHORE).

Sir T. BRAMSDON: 54.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if any report has been received by him of an encroachment on the foreshore at Sea-view,. in the Isle of Wight; and, if so, is any and what action being taken by the Board thereon?

Mr. LUNN: I have received a report of an alleged encroachment from the local coastguard officer, who has been instructed to report its exact position. When this report is received I will consider what action can be taken by the Board of Trade.

TURKEY (BRITISH CLAIMS).

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 56.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any payment has yet been made, and, if so, to what amount, to British nationals whose property was requisitioned by Turkish authorities in and around Constantinople during the course of the War?

Mr. LUNN: Claims in respect of damage to property in and around Constantinople have not been classified separately; but an amount of £626,869 has been paid, in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission presided over by Lord Sumner, in respect of loss of or damage to the property of British nationals in Turkish territory generally.

WHALING OPERATIONS, SHETLAND.

Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: 57.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether, considering that there has been a considerable increase in the catch of whales as compared with last year in Shetland, he will inquire into the question as to
whether there is any danger of the extermination of these animals and publish the result of his inquiry in his review at the close of the present season?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Adamson): Whaling operations in Shetland are conducted under a licensing system which restricts the number of steamers employed, and I do not think that those operations can, of themselves, involve material danger of extermination of the species of whales concerned. In the circumstances I do not consider that any such inquiry is necessary or would serve any useful purpose.

EX-SERVICE MEN (TEACHERS).

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 58.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of ex-service men who have been appointed to the teaching staff of elementary schools from the various training schemes since their inauguration?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): On the 30th September, 1928, the latest date for which I possess complete information, 4,878 ex-service men, trained under the Board's scheme for the higher education of ex-service students, had obtained teaching appointments in the schools. Nine hundred and thirty-two ex-service men trained under schemes promoted by the Ministry of Labour were known to have obtained teaching employment by the 16th July last. These figures relate to schools of all types in England and Wales.

LIEUT.-GENETIAL SIR W. PEYTON (SPEECH).

Major CHURCH: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the speech made by his military secretary, Lieut.-General Sir William Peyton, in opening a memorial hall at Bradwell, to the effect that the desire for war is an integral part of human nature, that another war was imminent, and that the League of Nations is not an effective instrument for the preservation of territorial integrity; and whether, seeing that His Majesty's Government is engaged in the task of attempting to create the conditions for a lasting world
peace, he proposes to take any action to prevent such speeches on the part of those holding official positions?

Marquess of HARTINGTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to this question, may I ask whether the alleged extract contained in this question is not very misleading, and does not convey a fair impression of the general tenor of the remarks of General Peyton?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Walsh): I must answer first of all the question on the Paper. I have only just obtained a. copy of the report of the speech referred to, and I have not since been able to consult Sir William Peyton. I understand, however, that he regarded the occasion as almost a private one, and that his intention was to inculcate not the war spirit, but the spirit of patriotism and self-sacrifice. In that part of his speech which is reported in the first person he made no suggestion that another war was imminent or that the League of Nations was ineffective. I regret, however, that the speech was such as to occasion misunderstanding.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not a fact that fuller reports of the speech of General Peyton show that he began by deploring the existence of war?

Mr. WALSH: I really cannot say, because I have only, as I have informed the House, just seen within the last few hours—being engaged elsewhere—the report, of the speech in the "Sheffield Daily Telegraph," of Monday. In that paper he is reported in the first person in a small paragraph, and in that part of the speech which is in the first person he makes no reference at all to the fact that another war was imminent or that the League of Nations was ineffective. As I say, I cannot, not having seen fuller reports, say what they contain.

Mr. FERGUSON: On a point of Order. The general was perfectly right. The League of Nations is no use at all!

METHYLATED SPIRIT.

Mr. LORIMER: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can give the number of people convicted of methylated spirit drinking since the addition of pyridine was made compul-
sory; and if he can give comparative figures of convictions before the new order was brought into force?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Rhys Davies): No, Sir It will not be possible to make any such comparison before the complete figures of convictions for drunkenness for the year 1924 are collected at the end of the year.

Mr. LORIMER: Is it not possible to have figures for a month, three months, or six months?

Mr. DAVIES: This ingredient was introduced compulsorily on 1st May, 1924, and I do not think the result can be measured just yet.

Mr. LORIMER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the chairman of the Liverpool Licensing Bench said that the increase in the consumption of methylated spirits was enormous and, that being so, will the hon. Gentleman not withdraw the Order that pyridine must be mixed with methylated spirits: it is very injurious to the industries which use methylated spirits?

Mr. DAVIES: I am very desirous of making methylated spirits as unpalatable as possible to those who are inclined to drink it.

Mr. LORIMER: 71.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, as methylated spirit is extensively used in surgery, and is one of the best sterilisers of the skin and of instruments, it has been brought to his notice that the addition of the new denaturant, pyridine, has a harmful effect upon the skin of the hands of surgeons and the skin of patients: and, if so, will he, in the interests oil surgeons and patients, have the Order to add pyridine to methylated spirit removed?

Mr. GRAHAM: The question raised by the hon. Member is at present under investigation.

SOLDIERS AND SAILOES (COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA).

Sir W. DAVISON: 62.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the publication, in a paper known as the "Workers' Weekly," of Friday, 25th July, of an open letter addressed to the fighting forces of the
Crown calculated to undermine discipline and to create disaffection; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. RENTOUL: 61.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the publication, in the "Workers' Weekly" of Friday, 25th July, of an open letter addressed to the fighting forces in which are used expressions of a subversive character and calculated to disturb and undermine discipline in His Majesty's services; and what steps he proposes to take against those responsible for the publication of this, pronouncement?

Mr. DAVIES: As I stated yesterday, my right hon. Friend is considering whether any action is called for in this matter.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not a fact that this letter was reported in the Press five days ago, and is it not about time the Home Secretary made up his mind?

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the Home Secretary, in considering this matter, also consider the fiasco which followed the prosecution of Tom Mann and others for issuing a similar pamphlet some years ago?

Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Is it not the fact that the editor of the "Workers' Weekly" is only trying to do what the Prime Minister wished to do during the War?

HORATIO BOTTOMLEY.

Mr. JAMES GARDNER: 63
asked the Home Secretary (1) the dates on which Prisoner Bottomley was received at and removed from Wormwood Scrubs and Maidstone prisons, respectively; the number of visits the prisoner had during each of the months from March to September, 1923, inclusive; if any visitor or visitors received a special permit or permits to visit the prisoner on any day without renewing the formal application; if so, to whom the permit or permits were issued and under whose authority; and for what purpose the visits were made;
(2) whether he is aware that special facilities as regards prison restrictions were given to Horatio Bottomley at Wormwood Scrubs and Maidstone prisons; that he wrote his diary in an official book; that the prisoner was allowed to have in
his cell a tin document box containing a large number of papers, the box being locked and the prisoner holding the key; if the box was searched, and, if so, by whom, when the prisoner took it with him on his transfer from Wormwood Scrubs to Maidstone prison; whether any or all of the papers have since been taken out of Maidstone prison, and, if so, by whom and upon whose authority; and will he undertake to see that the regulations are observed strictly in future;
(3) whether he will explain why Horatio Bottomley has been awarded full remission marks for good conduct during the whole of his time in prison, after having written the Press articles and aided and abetted smuggling them, out of the prison?

Mr. DAVIES: The answer to these questions is necessarily very long, and, with the hon. Member's permission, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

HON. MEMBERS: Read it!

Mr. DAVIES: Well, perhaps the House will bear with me, if they wish it to be read.

Mr. LORIMER: In view of the lengthy reply, may I, Mr. Speaker, point out that I have an important question on the Paper, No. 71, to which I should like to have a reply.

Mr. SPEAKER: The question of the way of giving his reply is a matter for the discretion of the Minister.

Mr. DAVIES: I hope the House will bear with me while I read the reply. [HON. MEMBERS "Read it!" and "Oh!"]

Mr. W. THORNE: What about other Members' questions? [Interruption.]

Sir B. FALLE: Is there any necessity vindictively to follow up this matter as to which way this reply should be given?

Mr. SPEAKER: I must leave it to the discretion of the Minister.

HON. MEMBERS: "Read it!" and "No, no!"

Mr. W. THORNE: There is a difference of opinion.

Mr. FERGUSON: Hesitate, and you are lost! Head it out

Mr. DAVIES: Bottomley was received into Wormwood Scrubs prison on the 29th May, 1922, and removed to Maidstone prison on the 2nd July, 1923. In addition to the ordinary visits to which he became entitled under the rules, he had to be allowed numerous special visits from his solicitors, secretary and accountant and other persons, for the purpose of preparing his statement called for by the Official Receiver in Bankruptcy, and in connection with his appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. The visits were allowed by the Commissioners, or by the Governor, in pursuance of general directions given by the Secretary of State, in some cases by a special permit for a single occasion, in others for a series of visits. The Prison Commissioners know nothing of any diary written by Bottomley in an official book. Bottomley was allowed to have a box in which to keep the numerous forms, returns and papers, to which it was necessary for him to refer in connection with his bankruptcy proceedings. To what extent he was allowed to hold a key to this box cannot be stated now, but the Governor or officers acting under his direction had access to it. This box was searched at Wormwood Scrubs by the Governor before the prisoner was removed to Maidstone. Certain papers were allowed to be handed over by Bottomley to his solicitor after his arrival at Maidstone. The regulations have been, and will be, strictly observed. As regards the question of Bottomley's good conduct marks, when it became evident that an inquiry would have to be held into the whole matter of the publication of the Press articles, Bottomley was informed that he might make a statement, and that he would lose nothing by frankness.

Mr. GARDNER: Will the Minister be good enough to give us the number of visits, and the months conerned; and will he kindly inform the House why visits were allowed at Maidstone, seeing that the bankruptcy proceedings were completed on 25th May of that year; also is the hon. Member aware—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put any further questions down on the Paper.

Mr. GARDNER: They are in the question.

PETROL SERVICE STATION, FULHAM.

Sir CYRIL COBB: 66.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the serious objections raised by the Council of the Metropolitan Borough of Fulham in connection with the proposed granting of a licence by the London County Council to the Anglo-American Oil Company to establish a petrol service station on each side of the road at the rear of the King's Arms at the junction of New King's Road and High Street, Fulham, with access to and from both these roads; and whether, in view of the serious traffic danger that would be involved at an already dangerous spot if this licence was granted, he will call for a Report from the Chief Commissioner of the Police as to the suitability of the spot for such a station, with a view to relieving the London County Council of their obligation to grant such a licence?

Mr. DAVIES: No representations have been made to my right hon. Friend on the subject. The Commissioner of Police is aware of the circumstances of the case, but does not consider it necessary to make any representations to the London County Council on the ground of obstruction or danger to traffic. The responsibility for granting a licence is vested in the London County Council under the Petroleum Act, 1871, and my right hon. Friend is unable to interfere.

PATENT MEDICINES.

Sir A. BUTT: 67.
asked the Home Secretary whether, having regard to the deception, and often injury to their health, inflicted upon poor people by advertisers of patent medicines, who allege that they are capable of curing malignant diseases, he will introduce a Bill making it obligatory that all patent medicines shall state clearly on the labels the principal drugs they contain?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for Woolwich West on the 28th July.

CRUMBLES BUNGALOW.

Sir A. BUTT: 68.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been
called to the opening to the public upon payment of an entrance fee of the bungalow at the Crumbles, which has since been stopped by public protest whether he is aware that public exhibitions of this sort have a demoralising effect on the public; and, if he has not power at present, whether he will take power to stop them in future?

Mr. DAVIES: The incident referred to was, as far as I am aware, of a wholly exceptional character. Public opinion appears to have been strong enough to put an end to it, and I do not think it affords any sufficient ground for initiating legislation, even if I saw my way to framing a Measure which would be both effective and free from objection.

Lieut.-Colonel MEYLER: Are not the accounts in the Press as demoralising as the action of these people?

Mr. DAVIES: I have great sympathy with the point of view put forward by my hon. Friend.

WINE AND SPIRIT COMPANIES (PROFITS).

Mr. LEIF JONES: 72.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give the estimated aggregate profits of distilleries and of wine and spirit companies of the United Kingdom, respectively, for 1913, and for each year subsequently up to 1923, inclusive?

Mr. GRAHAM: If the right hon. Member will postpone his question until the House reassembles after the Recess, I will, in the interval, see what information is available.

EXPORTED SPIRITS.

Mr. L. JONES: 73.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Government takes to make sure that spirits exported under bond reach their appointed destination, and are not sold free of duty on the high seas?

Mr. GRAHAM: I regret that I am unable to add anything to the reply given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for North Bristol on the 16th July.

Mr. JONES: Do the Government take care to see that the terms of the bargain signed by the exporter are carried out?

Mr. GRAHAM: All inquiry is being made, but, as my right hon. Friend knows, it is a very large question, and would involve legislation.

STANDING ORDER No. 27A (SELECTION OF AMENDMENTS).

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I want to ask the Leader of the House whether his attention has been drawn to a Notice of Motion which appears on the Blue Order Paper circulated this morning, which stands in the name of a very considerable number of hon. Members of this House—
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the working of Standing Order 37A, and to report what changes, if any, are necessary in the Standing Order.
I should like to ask the Leader of the House whether he has considered that Notice of Motion, and whether he can see his way to the appointment of a Select Committee, or, at any rate, provide the House with an opportunity of discussing the application of this Order, as there is a good deal of discontent with regard to some of the interpretations of it.

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): I recognise the importance of the points raised in the question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman, but I regret to say it is impossible for the Government to find time to discuss this matter before the House rises.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I point out that the right hon. Gentleman has not answered my other question, as to whether he will consider the appointment of a Select Committee. I can quite see the force of what he says about there being no time between now and the end of this part of the Session, but will the right hon. Gentleman consider before the next Session the appointment of a Select Committee, and will he at any rate give us time to discuss this matter. This rule has been in operation a good many years, and there has been a good deal of discontent with regard to the manner in which it has been interpreted.

Mr. CLYNES: I may say frankly that the only question which has been considered has been the demand for the dis-
cussion, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the other request which he has now made will have every attention.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what business he proposes to take to-day if the Motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister be carried?

Mr. CLYNES: We desire the House to carry the Motion to suspend the Eleven O'clock Rule in order to deal with the Lords Amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Bill. That Bill we expect to receive shortly from another place. We also desire to take Orders 8, 9 and 12 on the Order Paper. With regard to Friday, I might also say that we propose on that day to take the Lords Amendments to the London Traffic Bill and the Resolution approving the contract between the Marconi Company and the Postmaster-General with regard to the construction of a wireless telegraph station on the beam system. Papers on that subject will be available to-morrow.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unless we get the Lords Amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Bill through, and that Bill receives the Royal Assent between now and to-morrow, there will be quite 100,000 men who will lose their unemployment benefit?

Mr. HANNON: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take the Factories Bill next week?

Mr. CLYNES: On that question I must make an announcement to-morrow when giving information as to business. We had before us, I may say, the considerations which the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. W. Thorne) named when reaching our decision regarding the business tonight.

Captain W. BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication as to whether the Government intend to agree or disagree with the Lords Amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Bill?

Mr. CLYNES: The only communication I can give at the moment is that, with one exception, it is intended to move to disagree with the Lords Amendments.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is there any alteration in the business for to-morrow?

Mr. CLYNES: No, sir.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, on this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, Business other than Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the clock, and that Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Clynes.]

Mr. L. JONES: I do not rise to oppose this Motion, but—

Mr. SPEAKER: The Motion is not debatable.

Captain BENN: Is it the fact that, when two separate Motions, which in themselves may not be debatable, are put forward in one composite Motion in this way, the Motion still remains undebatable?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is so. It has always been so on these last days of Supply.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered,
That, on this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, Business other than Business, of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the clock, and that Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Clynes.]

SUICIDE.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to suicide.
I ask the special indulgence of the House in moving for leave to introduce a Bill concerning a subject with which I am so thoroughly unfamiliar as the law. My excuse for venturing on the perilous undertaking of trespassing within the legal maze is that I have long felt that something ought to be done to amend the law in regard to what is known as the "suicide pact," and I feel certain that the majority of the House will be in sympathy with the object of the Bill. The law of this country at present is that, if two people determine to commit suicide together, and the bargain is acted
upon, and if one of those people should survive, then the survivor is held to be guilty of murder. To the beet of my knowledge, and I have made the most thorough inquiry that I could, in no other civilised country are people actually convicted of murder in such a case. In fact, attempted suicide itself is not considered, in most countries, to be a crime punishable by law, the general opinion being that expressed in the Code of the State of New York, which states that, although suicide is deemed to be a grave public wrong, yet, from the impossibility of reaching the successful perpetrator, no forfeiture is imposed.
I should have liked to deal with the question of attempted suicide, but I have left it entirely out of this Bill. I have left it out in order to avoid any controversy whatsoever, in the hope of securing a First Reading for the Bill without a Division. I believe that most people in this country resent the inhumanity of the law as at present applied to the survivor in a "suicide pact," and I will give a single example of what I mean. At the end of 1922, a man named Symonds and a girl named Wall decided to commit suicide by throwing themselves under n train. At the last moment Symonds changed his mind, and attempted to save the girl. He was unable to do so, and she was killed, and in his endeavours to save her both his legs were so badly injured that they had to be amputated. Symonds was tried for murder and was found guilty and condemned to death, and leave to appeal was refused, as the Court of Criminal Appeal held that the law on this subject was perfectly clear, and that the Judge has made no mistake when ho directed the jury that the survivor in a "suicide pact" was guilty of murder. The Lord Chief Justice, in delivering judgment, said that if the law required amending, it was not a matter for the Courts, but was a matter for the Legislature. I understand that Symonds was respited by the Home Secretary and is now in prison, but that the duration of his sentence has not yet been determined.
It is for this House to decide whether we are going to adhere to this cruel law, which leaves us so far behind other nations. If an individual in this country attempts to commit suicide, he is not held to be guilty of any very serious crime,
and the main idea of magistrates in dealing with him appears to be to see that the attempt shall not be repeated; but where two people determine to commit suicide together, which generally means a sadder story, then, although the, survivor is obviously in a far worse plight than is the single individual who has merely attempted to commit suicide, yet, owing to our anomalous law, he is regarded as a murderer. At the beginning of this month a woman named West, 22 years old, was found in a room with a man, with the gas turned on. The man was dead; but she recovered, and she only escaped being tried for murder owing to the fact that a letter which was found in the room was in the man's handwriting, and was held not to be evidence against her at law. She, therefore, only escaped being tried for murder through a legal quibble.
The Bill which I ask leave to introduce is a very short and simple one, and is in the following words:
A person who incites another person to commit suicide, or agrees with another person that both shall commit suicide, shall not, even if that other person, upon such incitement or agreement, does commit suicide, be deemed on that account to be guilty of wilful murder, but shall, whether or not such incitement or agreement is acted upon, be guilty of felony, and on conviction thereof be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding five years.
Of course, I do not pretend that this is a final form of words, and if and when the Bill goes to a Committee we shall be glad to consider any Amendment that will make its intention more clear. Although, in my opinion, the survivor in the case of a "suicide pact" ought not to be held guilty of a crime that the law can punish, it will nevertheless be seen that I have included a severe penalty which may be inflicted, and my main reason for so doing has been to secure the passage of the Bill without opposition. I hope that the House will give me leave to bring in this Bill, and so will justify me in having thus ventured within the realms of the law, which I am myself totally incapable of understanding; and that the House will accept, as my only excuse for having done so, my intense desire that we in this country should not remain so far behind other countries in showing mercy to these unhappy people who appear to me to be,
perhaps, the most unhappy of all—people who, having felt that life was too much for them, find that, after all, they are compelled to face it, and this time to face it alone.

Major-General SEELY: I hope the House will not give a First Reading to my hon. and gallant Friend's Bill. People who enter into "suicide pacts" ought to go through with the job, and, if one of them dies and the other survives, he deserves his fate at the hands of the law I cannot help thinking that this applies to all forms of suicide. political and other.

Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to suicide," put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Brigadier-General Spears, Viscountess Astor, Mrs. Wintringbam, Lieut.-Colonel Rudkin, Mr. Maxton, Mr. Ramage, Captain Berkeley, Mr. Wallhead, Lieut.-Colonel James, Mr. Lansbury, and Sir Douglas Newton.

SUICIDE BILL,

"to amend the Law relating to suicide," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to he read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 230]

PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY.

Mr. SCURR: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Constitution of the Port of London Authority.
This Bill is one which has been considered for some time by the local authorities in the East End of London and by the trade unions representing labour. I do not wish in any sense to criticise the Port of London Authority, but it has been described on more than one occasion as a Capitalist Soviet. So far as the majority of its members are concerned, 17 of them are elected by the representatives of the wharfingers and others interested purely from the capitalist point of view in the trade of the port. So far as the local authorities, who have a tremendous interest in the port, are concerned, there are two representatives of the City Corporation and
four representatives of the London County Council, two of whom have to be members outside the Council, and, by a convention, one is reserved for the representation of labour. There is also another member appointed by the Government Department who represents labour. It has been pointed out for some considerable time that public feeling in this country has been moving towards the idea that labour should no longer be regarded merely as a commodity. The time is coming when labour ought to be taken into real and actual partnership in regard to the administration of industry, and, when we have a public utility of this kind, it is surely time that we ought to try a real experiment in regard to partnership so far as the workmen are concerned. The dock and transport workers form a very important part of the labour of London, and we want them to be able, through their representatives on the authority which is concerned not only with the administration of their labour but of the trade of the whole of the Port of London, to give their views, their opinions, their advice and their knowledge. Therefore, in this Bill, we are proposing that, the trade unionists in the industry should be able to elect nine members on the Port Authority to represent them.
I turn then to the question of the local authorities. So far at. we in the East End of London are concerned, the boroughs of West Ham, Poplar and Stepney, one of the great problems with which our boards of guardians are faced over and over again is the great demand for Poor Law relief due to the fact that there is so much casual labour employed by the Port of London Authority. Yet, when the question of assessment comes round, the Port of London Authority comes along, despite the fact that this casual labour causes an increase in the amount of relief that has to be given, arid consequently an increase in our local rates, and demands a decrease in its, assessment on account of the increase in the rate for which it is responsible. We consider that the local authorities ought to be represented on the Authority. We agree that the London County Council, as re presenting the whole of London, should have its representation, but we consider, instead of having four, of whom two have to be elected from outside as at present,
it should have three, and that in addition there should be one representing the Corporation of the City of London. The remaining five should come from the Metropolitan boroughs, three from the boroughs within the administrative County of London, and the rest, up to the number of nine, from the boroughs outside the administrative county. Then, so far as the interests of the employers are concerned, we give them an equal representation, namely, nine. This is a Measure which is supported by the whole of the trade unionists in this industry, and it has the favourable consideration of many local authorities who are concerned in the Port of London, and we put it forward because we believe that labour should be able to take a real part in the administration of the affairs of the Port.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to he brought in by Mr. Scurr, Mr. Tillett, Mr. March, Mr. Benjamin Smith, Mr. Wignall, Mr. Sexton and Mr. Short.

PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY BILL,

"to amend the constitution of the Port of London Authority," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 231.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill,

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,

Ashton-under-Lyne Corporation Bill, with Amendments.

Finance Bill,

Public Works Loans Bill,

London, Midland and Scottish Railway (Dock Charges, Scotland) Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

Keighley Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill, with an Amendment.

Amendments to—

Government of India (Leave of Absence) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

KEIGHLEY CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.

Lords Amendment to be considered Tomorrow.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

HOUSING BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 226.]

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time: to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 227.]

TOWN PLANNING BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 228.]

TOWN PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 229.]

LOCAL AUTHORITIES LOANS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow.

BILLS REPORTED.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 7) Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 8) Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 9) Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Rhymney and Aber Gas Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Scarisbrick Estate Drainage Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Lanarkshire Hydro-Electric Power Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolution reported from the Select Committee:
That, in the case of the imperial Institute Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with—That the Bill be permitted to proceed.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[19TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1924–25.

ADMIRALTY OFFICE.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,229,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1924–25.

CLASS VII.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £8,560,339, be granted to His Majesty, to complete? the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the Contributions to the Unemployment Fund, and to Special Schemes, and Payments to Associations and Local Educational Authorities for administration under the Unemployment Insurance Acts; Expenditure in connection with the Training of demobilised Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and Men,' and Nurses; Grants for Resettlement in Civil Life; and the Expenses of the Industrial Court; also Expenses in connection with the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations), including a Grant-in- Aid."—[Note: £5,500,000 has been voted on account.]

The CHANCELLOR of the EX-CHEQUER (Mr. Snowden): I understand that this Vote for the Ministry of Labour has been asked for by the party below the Gangway in order to afford the Government an opportunity to explain their policy in regard to unemployment. I think the Committee will agree that, before we have a discussion and criticisms or approval, the Committee should be in possession of the statement of the Government. It is no part of my job as Chancellor of the Exchequer to put before the House of Commons proposals for the expenditure of public money. The
function of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I understand it, is to resist all demands for expenditure made by his colleagues, and, when he can no longer resist, to limit the concession to the barest point of acceptance. However, I find some consolation for the duty that I have to discharge this afternoon in the fact that I have always held and advocated that there is a form of public expenditure which is remunerative to the Exchequer—
There is that seattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty,
and I am hopeful that the proposals that I shall submit this afternoon, while they may involve the expenditure of large sums of public money, will add very greatly to the productive capacity of the country and to its wealth and taxable capacity.
The Government welcomes the interest which is shown in this question by all parties in the House. I am going to make neither apology nor excuse for the record of the Government upon this subject. Neither do I object to our political opponents trying to make party capital out of the fact that we have not, in the first six months of office, completely solved the unemployment problem. I have no doubt that we shall be reminded in the course of the Debate this afternoon that the Labour party at the last election declared that they had a positive remedy for unemployment. We have a positive remedy for unemployment, but the positive remedy for a chronic disease does not effect a cure in a day and a night. The more positive the remedy the slower is its effect. I hope, apart from these little pleasantries, that we are going to discuss this question this afternoon, not as a party issue, but as a grave national problem demanding the co-operation of all parties in the House.
There are two features of the unemployment problem. There is the abnormal unemployment to which, unfortunately, the country has been subject during the last three or four years, and there is what I may call the normal unemployment, which has been a permanent feature of our industrial system. It is interesting to note that an analysis of the unemployment returns shows that if unemployment could be reduced in three of our great industries, then the average un-
employment would not be higher than the figure which was considered normal in the days before the War. It is significant in that connection that these three trades are trades which are mainly or very largely dependent on foreign trade—the shipping industry, the engineering trade, and the greatest of our manufacturing industries, the cotton trade. It is also very interesting to note that, although the body of our foreign trade is smaller, we are maintaining our proportion of the world's trade. I have recently had an analysis made which shows the very vital interesting and significant fact that the price level of our exports is 90 per cent, above the pre-War level, whereas the price level of our imports is only 50 per cent, higher. That seems to me to lead to the conclusion that the cost of production in this country is very high, and that that is one of the things on which we must concentrate attention and effort. If we are going to maintain and increase our foreign trade, we must secure a reduction in the cost of production. All these three trades, as I have said, are dependent, or largely dependent, upon the export trade. Shipping depends entirely on foreign trade. Engineering does so to a large extent, and so does the cotton trade. An hon. Member who sits on the other side of the House, and who takes a very prominent and always effective part in our Debates, I understand some time ago made a suggestion for a solution of the unemployment problem. That suggestion was that we should get the hundreds of millions of Chinamen to wear their shirts two inches longer. That may appear to be very ludicrous, but there is a great truth in it and a great fact as well, for so vast is the population of the world using cotton goods that the slightest individual increase on a large scale in the consumption of cotton goods makes all the difference between prosperity and depression in the cotton trade. There is another fact in this connection, and it is that those vast populations are poor, and have a very low purchasing power, and the slightest decrease in their purchasing power has a tremendous influence upon the country of production. I mention these points to show the importance of our foreign trade, and the importance of doing everything we possibly can not only to maintain it, but to increase it.
I am hopeful that the inter-Allied Conference now sitting in London—and I
am sure we are all hopeful—may result in such an agreement as will lead to an improved condition of affairs in Europe, and enable the great markets of that Continent to be open to us and to the other commercial nations of the world in a large and an abundant measure. There are facts, however, which we must not ignore. We are bound to have to face an intensified competition in the world's trade in the future. Therefore we are bound to do everything we possibly can now by cheapening our methods of production and by improving our methods in every possible way, so that when the revival of trade comes, this country will be able to secure its full share of that improvement.
May I say this in passing, although I express no very definite opinion on it. I wonder sometimes whether in some of our manufacturing industries we have not a larger number of people dependent on it, or hoping to be dependent than the industry can or is ever likely to be able to support. I am expressing no definite opinion about that, but am inclined to think that in one or two industries there has been a larger influx of labour during the last 10 or 12 years than the industry is able to support. If there be anything in that point, it leads to this conclusion. It is a very big question whether we should continue the policy of the minutest sub-division of labour, training men for highly-skilled jabs and for nothing else but a particular job, or whether it would not be much better if we turned our attention to the training of all-round craftsmen, so that if in particular classes of employment, through changes, a particular kind of labour no longer became necessary, then, without any great dislocation, that labour can be easily transferred to other channels. I put that forward as a suggestion possibly worthy of consideration.
We are an industrialised country, and if we are to maintain our population, we shall have to remain an industrialised country. But that is no excuse for neglecting to develop our national and natural resources. On the contrary, it is a reason for us to make ourselves as far as we can economically self-dependent. Therefore the solution of the unemployment problem, in the opinion of the Government, is to be found in the full development of all our national and
natural resources, and in the scientific organisation of production, ending with the elimination of waste in every sphere and every department. We must cheapen the cost of production. May I say that cheap production does not necessarily mean cheap labour. It ought to mean the very opposite. The cheaper the cost of production, the more ought there to be to share. That is a fact which is admitted by all the great intelligent captains of industry.
What are the causes of the present high cost of production? They are many. There is taxation, and especially local rates. I think the burden of local rating is heavier even than the burden of national taxation. High taxation is to be deprecated when it is not used for productive purposes. Waste in the cost of production and distribution, and unnecessary expense, which enters into the cost of production and distribution, is to be found in two phases, transport and power. With regard to transport, there are various forms which go to make up the problem. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), when he was President of the Board of Trade, now a long time ago, appointed myself and others on the Royal Commission to inquire into the waterways and canals of the country. We sat on that Commission for about five years, and the results of our labour are to be found, I believe, in some volumes buried somewhere in the cellars of a Government office. We had not been long pursuing these inquiries before I became convinced that we could not consider the problem of transport properly by looking only at the canals and waterways. What was necessary was inter-communication, the dovetailing of the various forms of transport, water, rail and road.
As regarding canal development, I will be perfectly frank, and will say that in my judgment I do not believe that there is any great future for transport by canals and waterways in this country. This country has not the natural advantages that many Continental countries have for that purpose. The great waterways systems of the Continent are, in the main, canalised rivers. We have not the water supply in this country for large artificial waterways, but there are one or
two canals which might possibly be profitably developed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ladywood (Mr. Neville Chamberlain) has for many years taken an interest in the Worcester Canal and the development of the waterways round about Birmingham. I believe if there is any canal scheme which might be, I do not say financially profitable in the sense of paying a dividend, but remunerative in the sense that it was an aid to the industry of the district, this is one, and I understand that negotiations have been going on for a long time, but there is yet no result. What I have to say on behalf of the Government is that we shall welcome the continuation of these inquiries and negotiations. We hope they may be successful, and I am sure it will not be for lack of willingness on the part of the Government if something fruitful does not result from them.
Now may I say a word or two about railways? We have not yet seen—at any rate it is not obvious to the general public—the full advantages from the amalgamation of the railway companies which took place a year or two ago, and I regret to have to say at this point that the railway companies are not showing much enthusiasm for re-conditioning and re-equipping their lines. I can well understand the position of the railway companies. One reason for the opposition is that the railway engineers have been trained in what one might call the "steam age." They are conservative. They believe in the thing to which they have always been accustomed. They do not like these modern, new-fangled ideas, and I believe the reluctance of the railway companies to electrify their lines to a greater extent is due in some measure to the reason I have just mentioned. But of course there is another. The railway companies, and particularly the Southern railway companies, are doing something to electrify their suburban lines. The reason they are doing that, and not electrifying their main lines, is that over small areas, where you have a very large traffic, the return on the capital comes in very quickly. It would not be so in the case of the electrification of the main lines, because a large amount of capital would have to be invested, and the whole electrification would have to be completed before the capital that had been invested became remunerative, What is the
moral which I and my friends behind me would draw from that? I say I can understand the position of the railway companies. They have a responsibility to their shareholders. They must provide a dividend. I believe, consistent with that duty, they do the best they can for the convenience of the public service, but the other thing comes first. The moral I want to draw from all this is that if the railways were under national control, the position would be entirely different. The railways would be run with a different object and a different purpose, and the State could afford, having no shareholders who were expecting a dividend in cash, to do what the railway companies either cannot or will not undertake at once, that is, to invest capital in the belief that it would be for the benefit of the trade and industry of the country, and the community could afford to wait until it became a financial success.

Mr. HANNON: Who would provide the capital?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am simply amazed at the hon. Member. May I ask him who found the capital when the 127 railway companies were amalgamated into four about 18 months ago? Not a single penny of capital was found. The only thing that happened was that each shareholder in a railway company received a notification that, in place of his existing stock, he had been given new stock in one of the groups. The Government have not given up all hope of inducing the railway companies to do much more in the way of the electrification of their systems, and we are continuing to put on them all the pressure we can bring to bear, and we are hopeful of some practical results.
May I turn to the question of roads—the other important means of transport? The coming of motor transport has completely altered the situation. Our roads were unfitted for this new form of traffic. I wonder if the Committee is aware of the enormous sum that is spent every year upon the maintenance of roads? We spend every year—I mean the local authorities mainly, with what assistance is given from the Ministry of Transport—no less than £40,000,000. May I remind those who are inclined to complain about motor taxation of this fact. The railway companies have to
invest a vast amount of capital before they can run a train. I have not got recent figures, but, speaking from memory, the revenue of the railway companies is about one-twelfth of the amount of their capital expenditure. But those who use the roads for the same purpose as railways are used, for the transport of goods, have to pay nothing beyond a licence for the capital expenditure which has been put into the roads. I hope those who are inclined to complain about the heavy motor taxation will remember that fact. Having said that, I want to come more to details about these two important factors of cheap transport and cheap power. Cheap transport must involve ample facilities for transport, and not merely low rates. This is a big problem. It will be costly at the outset, but it is an expenditure which will have to be incurred, and which will be the salvation of the country. It is a pity—I am not blaming anyone—that a bigger attempt was not made immediately after the War. There was a more favourable atmosphere then, and because it was not done, we have had to spend hundreds of millions of pounds in the intervening years in the maintenance of the unemployed. It would have been far better if these hundreds of millions had been spent in the re-organisation of industry.
If I have any criticism at all to make about past policy and past methods of dealing with unemployment, it would be that we have never looked sufficiently far ahead. I have sometimes put it in a somewhat paradoxical form like this, that the time to deal with unemployment is when there is no unemployment. You cannot deal with such a problem as unemployment when an acute and a grave crisis is upon you, and you cannot improvise great schemes at 24 hours' notice. They must be prepared when Governments have, leisure, and they must be got ready to be put into operation as soon as ever the need arises. Further—this may be regarded as a criticism of past efforts of palliation and the measures which this Government have continued—you are never going to settle the unemployed problem, you are never going to mitigate it to any extent by making work.
Take, for instance, the schemes under the unemployment grants for the acceleration of work. That sort of thing must be done when you have not got other big
schemes of a remunerative character on which to put men to work. But I hope, although we realise the need of doing this as a measure of temporary alleviation, that we are not under the illusion that we are doing something to solve unemployment. We are not. As a matter of fact, in a sense we are agravating unemployment, because we are making unemployment in the future. Therefore, while the Government, under necessity, will continue to do as much as they possibly can on those lines, I want it to be distinctly understood that we do not regard that as a means of solving the unemployment problem.
What have we done on schemes of that kind? Unemployment has gone down during the last six or eight months. The figures are very much lower than they were this time last year. On 21st January, about the time we took office, there were 1,251,000 unemployed. The figures on 9th July, a year ago, were 1,223,000, and on 7th July this year, 1,024,000, so that they have gone down by about 200,000. I would not put the export credits in the same category as the other works with which I was dealing a moment ago. Export credits are of a much more defensible character. We have sanctioned up to the end of June last export credits to the extent of £28,000,000, and of this amount credits amounting to £10,600,000 have been actually granted. The remainder has not yet been taken up, but we are prepared as soon as the credits are sanctioned to make grants to the full extent of the remaining £18,000,000.

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is that new?

Mr. SNOWDEN: It is up to the 30th June.

Sir L. W0RTHINGTON-EVANS: Is that in excess of the amounts mentioned in the White Paper?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Which White Paper?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Your Command Paper.

Mr. SNOWDEN: These are the figures which have been supplied to me.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: As a member of the Export Credits Committee, may I say that the right hon. Gentleman's figures are right in principle. But although we
have undertaken to grant these credits, the sad thing is that these millions of credits agreed to and not taken up will not be taken up. The relative orders are not forthcoming, although credit has been granted. The trouble is the lack of orders for export. The right hon. Gentleman must not assume that these £18,000,000 of dormant credits will ever mean live trade.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I said that the amount which had been sanctioned by the Committee is £28,000,000, that over £10,000,000 have already been granted, and that there are £18,000,000 waiting to be taken up.

Mr. SAMUEL: rose—

Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member will have an opportunity of putting his point later.
Now I turn to the question of trade facilities. The Committee will remember that the contingent liability of the Exchequer was £50,000,000 but under the new Act it was raised from £50,000,000 to £65,000,000, and the guarantees have been raised since this Government came into power from £38,000,000 to £48,000,000. The Committee have at the moment before them applications for more millions. The Unemployment Grants Committee since February have approved 750 schemes, to the value of £5,500,000. and they have under consideration at the moment schemes to the value of £3,400,000. These are so far advanced that it is hoped and believed they will be ready to start in the coming winter About a month or six weeks ago we sent out inspectors of the Unemployment Grants Committee to visit various municipalities throughout the country, and to urge upon them the importance of putting in hand work which they thought they might be able to carry out. We have had their returns, and at the present time there are schemes for the coming winter amounting to over £3,000,000, while at the corresponding date last year the amount was only £500,000.
Certain Government Departments are also accelerating their contracts. Since February, the Air Ministry has accelerated work upon the building of aircraft and engines which will mean employment for 15,000 additional men. The Ministry of Agriculture has certain drainage schemes under consideration. [Laughter.] Do hon. Members opposite
object to that? I should have thought that the party opposite, interested in agriculture, would have welcomed any proposals for improving land, at the expense of the, State, for the benefit of the landlord. I have given the authority of the Treasury to the support of a scheme, which will be a very big one, for the drainage of the basin of the Great Ouse, and negotiations, which have reached a fairly advanced stage, are now taking place between the various parties interested. That will be an important and extremely useful piece of work.
I come to the roads. The present Government have approved a further road programme of £13,500,000, and the Government contribution to that will be £10,400,000. I am told that the House of Commons have heard on more than one occasion something about the Liverpool-Manchester Road. I believe it figured in every one of the speeches of Sir Montague Barlow during the last two or three years. The Liverpool-Manchester Road has not yet been begun, but we have made up our minds, and we are quite determined that two and three years more shall not elapse until this scheme is either off or on. I might say, and I think it is only justice to Sir Montague Barlow to say this, that the fault is not entirely the fault of the Government. There have been difficulties with the local authorities, and I believe there have been differences of opinion as to the route that the road ought to take. We have sent down Sir Richard Redmayne to report upon the merits of certain alternative routes. There is some little difference between the local authorities and the Government as to their respective shares of the contribution, but I do not think that that will present any insuperable difficulty, as soon as it is shown to be practicable that the road can be constructed.
We have also agreed to spend £5,000,000 on the reconstruction of main trunk roads. There have been several conferences with the county councils. The Minister of Transport has sent out all his divisional road engineers, who have now presented reports, and the conferences with the county councils have been resumed. The work will, I believe, be well in hand before the winter has passed. I am happy to be able to report that we have been much more successful in
regard to the Glasgow-Edinburgh road than were our predecessors in regard to the Liverpool-Manchester road. This project has got so advanced that in the next week or so the Minister of Transport will cut the first sod. I will not detain the Committee by reciting other schemes which the Ministry of Transport have on hand, beyond saying that the scheme for a tunnel under the Thames has been considerably advanced. Experiments have been made on several sites, but some of them have been found, from the engineering point of view, to be absolutely impossible. One of the difficulties, from the political point of view, is this, so I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, that every Member of Parliament who represents a London constituency is determined that one end of the tunnel, at least, shall be in his constituency. I have also the authority of my right hon. Friend to say that he will accommodate all these hon. Members as far as it is physically possible. We have also—though perhaps this is not at so advanced a stage—under consideration the question of a big road to the docks, which is, perhaps, the most important scheme for the relief and improvement of London transport that could possibly be conceived.
I am a great enthusiast for roads. When I was on the Canal Commission I made a public speech in which I said I believed that the best investment the country could make would be to spend £10,000,000 at once upon the improvement of the main roads of the country, and I shall never forget the satisfaction that I derived when I discovered that the "Spectator" had said that this was the first sensible suggestion that had ever emanated from the brain of a Socialist. I would like to see—and if I remain a Member of the Government sufficiently long I shall press it upon the Government, because I believe it is essential in any scheme of national reorganisation—that magnificent great Western road carried right through to Penzance, and a main road from London to Aberdeen, and another through Carlisle to Glasgow. I believe that that will be taken in hand by somebody some day, and the sooner the better. We have had under consideration the question of a bridge across the River Tay, and have undertaken to pay the preliminary expenses
for the necessary engineering investigations to be made. If the report be satisfactory, we shall begin to negotiate with the local authorities who are interested. I think I may go so far as to say that we shall not be hard upon them, and that if we can get a moderate contribution from them, and if the engineering report be satisfactory, this big scheme will be started, and it will, as Scottish Members will agree, be a tremendous fillip to communications between the South and the North of Scotland.
We have been in communication with the different railway companies, and they are prepared to put in hand a great deal of work. The Great Western Railway Company expect to spend £13,000,000 on capital account, maintenance and renewal; the London and North Eastern Company expect to spend £19,000,000; the London Midland and Scottish Company are engaged on a programme of £13,500,000; and the Southern Railway will carry out a reconstruction programme which is estimated to cost over £10,000,000.
5 P.M.
Hon. Members no doubt have seen the report which has been issued by the Mines Department in regard to the conservation of coal, and my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines has asked me to say this. His Department believes, and I think that the Committee will agree, that the development of our industrial processes with the best aid that the best scientific research and management can give is one of the best methods of dealing with unemployment. Members of the Committee will remember the figures given in the report published in the newspapers a day or two ago about the great waste of fuel, and the possibility of doing something by which it might be better utilised. The problem is to devise means by which this can be done on a commercial scale, so that as much as possible of the 140,000,000 odd tons of coal burned in this country every year may be so treated as to reduce waste. If the 35,000,000 tons of domestic coal burned on the hearth alone were treated by some process, 450,000,000 gallons of fuel oil would be produced.
If this problem were once solved, there would be not only an immediate relief of unemployment in the construction of new plant, but the ultimate effect would be even more far-reaching. The best brains
and most of the expert knowledge in this country are now engaged upon this problem. They are investigating the fundamentals of the problem, which include a survey of the coal seams of the country by means of chemical and physical tests, and the Government have agreed that additional funds should be devoted to that purpose. I have dealt with what I may call the minor points of unemployment, and if the Committee accept the view that a solution of the unemployment problem lies in national reconstruction, the utilisation of power in its various forms and the elimination of waste, then I think that they will agree with the suggestions which I am going to put forward towards that end.
Of course, all these schemes aim at national reconstruction, and at attaining cheap production. I come to the possibilities of electrical development. We find that intensive development of electricity on sound business lines will help probably more than any other way in achieving the objects which we have in view, and it will also help in a way indirectly in dealing with the unemployment problem. The idea which we had in mind was not to treat the provision of work primarily from the point of view of finding work for the unemployed, but to find big schemes which would be useful. Then you do find work, useful work, and in that way you are helping to lessen the volume of unemployment. But I want to warn the Committee that these schemes will be expensive. You cannot have large schemes of electrical development in this country unless you are prepared to put your hands into your pockets to find the money. It will be the best investment which the country could possibly make, and it may be necessary in doing this to depart to some extent from what have been regarded in the past as the principles upon which State assistance should be given to local authorities, or even to private corporations. But the essential thing is to get the work in hand, and to get these schemes of electrical development in hand, too.
Very often it is said that Great Britain is very much behind other countries in the matter of electrical development. That may be so. There are causes for it, and one of the causes is the absence of water on any great scale in this country.
Electrical development in this country will remain on a fuel-fire basis. You cannot expect that we shall be able to produce electricity upon any very large scale by water power unless we are able to develop such things as the Severn barrage, and I hope to have a word to say about that before sitting down. The cost of production of electrical power in this country is cheaper than it is in other countries where they have to rely upon fuel. It is only where electrical power is produced from water that they have any advantage in other countries in that respect.
Another reason why electrical development is backward in this country is the failure of the industrialists themselves to appreciate the value of it. May I mention this as an illustration of the conservatism of the English manufacturer and captain of industry. Not long ago a man who is the head of the largest electrical undertaking in the world called upon me. He is a foreigner, and he told me this extraordinary story. He said that just before the War he came to this country, and interviewed a number of our large engineering and manufacturing firms, and he said that he made this offer to them. "I will entirely re-equip your works with electrical machinery and electrical power, and I will not charge you a single penny for it. All you shall pay me is the saving in your working expenses at the end of five years." And he said, "I could not get a single English firm to take that offer." But the reason for that is, I think, to be found most of all in the mistaken policy, after 1888, of allowing generation to proceed on parochial lines, with small stations all over the country. The electrical industry has grown up in this country as it were piecemeal, without any order or plan, and it is going to be an expensive thing to put it into an ordered condition. There are, I am told, no fewer than 532 electrical stations in this country, and 42 per cent, of them produce less than a million units in the year. Two-thirds of them are very small stations.
Let me put a little light into this rather dark picture. There has been considerable development during the three years since the passing of the emasculated Act of 1919. Since 1922—I have not the figures—the capital invested in electrical undertakings in this country
has risen by 43 per cent., generating plant by 60 per cent., and units produced by 24 per cent. The opposition to progress comes not only from the private companies, but from the municipalities, and I do not know that the municipalities are not to some extent even greater sinners. They are frequently very parochially minded. They do not want to surrender their own control over the generating stations, when very often it would be greatly to the advantage of the consumers if that were done.
If electricity in Great Britain is to be in advance of other countries, it will be necessary to obtain greater power of co-ordination of effort, and far greater subordination of local interests to national interests. The Electricity Commissioners by legislation; and we propose, remember the limited powers which they have had. They have been very much hampered by the lack of compulsory powers, which were proposed in the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman about five years ago, and, in spite of the considerable progress that has been made in co-ordinating systems in different parts of the country, the Government are of opinion that the powers proposed in 1919 should be given to the Electricity Commissioners by legislation; and we propose, possibly in the Autumn Session, certainly early next Session, to introduce a Bill to restore these powers.
I spoke just now about the chaotic way in which the industry had developed in this country. There is no more instructive illustration of that than the variety of frequency. I am afraid that if I were subjected to a technical examination as to what "frequency" means I should fail. But I understand that the "frequency" is the number of cycles in a second. Unless the power be produced of the same frequency, it is not possible to interchange between one station and another. The idea is to keep the power at a standard frequency in all the large stations from the Clyde to the South of England, and then to have inter-communication by great arterial schemes.
The frequency in some cases may be 100, in some cases 50, in some 33⅓, and in some 25; and the change over to one standard of frequency will be a very big work, but the Government are going to recommend that the State should undertake that work. It will not be done
unless the State does undertake it, because it is not to the financial advantage of the authorities to incur that expenditure. The advantages of standardisation would be that the manufacturers would be able to reduce the number of their patterns and their stocks, and there would be a cheapening of the cost of production. I understand that if there were the one frequency, say, a frequency of 50, all over the country, the manufacturers of electrical apparatus would be much better able to compete in the market than they are at the present time, and I think that the inter-communication between the great generation stations, resulting from having the one frequency, would be to cheapen the cost of production very considerably.
The Government, on the advice of their experts, are convinced of the extreme importance of this point. We have authorised one of the greatest experts on electricity in this country to enter into negotiations with the municipalities and the power companies, and to offer to them certain suggestions. I will be quite frank, and state what we are proposing. We are proposing that this expert shall be empowered to hold a conference of the various electricity concerns in the country, with a view of securing their support in making a uniform frequency, and also with regard to transmission lines. If we gather, in the course of the Debate to-day, that the House of Commons approves of the Government proceeding on these lines, then as soon as we have got the report of this expert, we shall feel that we are empowered to embark on the work of standardising the frequency of the current. It will be a big job, which will take probably three years. I hesitate to give a figure about the cost, because I cannot at the moment say what it would be. It can be stated approximately, but not accurately. It may perhaps be something like £10,000,000, spread over the three years. So much for frequency.
Now I come to transmission lines. To produce electricity cheaply it is necessary to concentrate the generation of the current in large stations, and then distribute it at high tension to substations. The high cost of transmission lines is the great obstacle to development,
and tends to delay the work until it is absolutely necessary that it should be carried out. If electrical development is to be accelerated, cables should be laid down well in advance of immediate requirements, and this is a field suitable for State enterprise. I am told that there is hardly a case in existence where transmission lines have been laid in country districts, and through long distances ahead of requirements, in which the expense has not been either wholly or to a great extent borne by the State, and we are convinced it will not be done in this country unless the State shoulders at least a great part of the financial burden.
This in a more definite form is what we propose in regard to transmission lines: We suggest that the Electricity Commissioners should be authorised to hold a conference of the Incorporated Municipal Electrical Association, the Associated Power Companies and the Provincial Supply Company of Great Britain, with a view to securing the maximum possible development of a main transmission system, on terms to be outlined in the following scheme. The work must be of a kind which the undertakers have no intention in the near future of carrying out with their own resources, and must not be accelerated work in the ordinary sense of mere additions to, or extensions of, schemes already in operation. The financial assistance to be given is a system of grants to those authorities undertaking approved works individually or jointly, sufficient in amount to make up the net revenue (after allowing for depreciation or sinking fund) attributable to the particular work, at a rate of interest to be fixed by the Treasury, on the expenditure incurred, until such time as the net revenue is sufficient to meet the charges, but not more than ten years.
A word or two about the development of electricity in rural areas.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: What would be the cost of the scheme just outlined by the right hon. Gentleman?

Ml. SNOWDEN: It is impossible to say until we know what would be the amount of work.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: When the grants have been made, and the transmission lines laid, to whom will the transmission lines belong?

Mr. SNOWDEN: That will come in later. There is no instance, either at home or abroad, of any scheme of rural development which has been self-supporting. That is owing to the large amount of expenditure which has to be incurred for a small amount of revenue. You hear of cheap rural supply abroad. The explanation is that the electrical power is generated by water power, right away from the industrial centres, in some cases naturally adopted, and it has to be transmitted to the places where it is consumed. By that means they are able to give a cheap supply to the villages or houses along the line of transmission. We believe that this is a very important thing. Everyone agrees that it will add to the amenities of rural life. It will prevent the flow of population from the country districts to the towns, and, what is perhaps more important, it will encourage the transfer of industries from large centres of population into the healthier country districts. In regard to the improvement of the amenities of country life it will serve for the lighting of cottages; it can be adapted to electrical domestic apparatus, and it will lighten the work of a household. In several other ways it will be a great advantage to the countryside. I feel that in this connection there must be some organisation for the distribution of the electricity. It might be possible, and I think it would be necessary, to form some subsidiary organisation, but that will have to be, to some extent, subsidised by the State. There might, for instance, be wiring of a house on something like the hire purchase system. Our great idea is to adapt and adopt everything which may be necessary in order to achieve electrical power in the country districts for power purposes and domestic use.
I promised to say a word or two about the Severn barrage. The Water Power Resources Committee, in 1920, drew attention to the desirability and the possibilities, from the commercial point of view, of utilising the tides of the Severn. During the economy campaign, the consideration of the Committee's proposal was postponed. We have decided to revive it. But if this scheme were carried to a successful issue, it would be one of the most difficult engineering feats which has ever been achieved in the history of the world. We must not rush
into a thing like this without very careful preliminary investigation, and the Board of Trade have formed a Committee, to seek advice as to the nature and scope of the inquiries which will be necessary. That is being done; it has been done. The Treasury have agreed to the necessary expenditure. We are told that it will take two or three years to complete all the investigations that are necessary. Apart from the necessity of the engineers finding the proper foundation, it will be necessary to investigate and to take note of the tides, probably over a period of two years. We have sanctioned the whole of the expenditure necessary for carrying out full investigation, and this, it is estimated, may cost about £95,000. At the moment I cannot go further than that. I am quite sure that the Committee will agree that the preliminary investigation is necessary before we rush into a big scheme.
I want to say a word or two upon a matter on which I have promised information to the House on more than one occasion. That is the question of sugar beet. The Government have accepted the principle of Exchequer assistance, for the sugar beet industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Protection!"] A foolish observation like that, if it has any effect at all, is calculated to make me sit down now, and not say another word. It was an extremely foolish observation, because hon. Members might have waited to hear what I had to say, and then they would have had sufficient knowledge to criticise the proposals of the Government. Members of the Committee will see, after I have made my statement, that the question neither of Free Trade nor of Protection is involved. The beet sugar factories which are in existence in this country have already received assistance from previous Governments. They have also had the advantage of freedom from Excise Duty, equivalent to the Customs Duty on imported sugar. I reduced the Sugar Duty very considerably in the last Budget. Then representations were made to us that it was impossible for the British beet sugar factories to carry on in their initial stages unless some further assistance were given. The effect of the present arrangement, freedom from Excise Duty, is that they get an advantage of 11s. 8d. a cwt. Before I made a reduction in the Sugar Duty, the advantage was 25s. 8d. a cwt., or some such figure. They could just struggle
along with that advantage, but they cannot do so With the advantage of 11s. 8d. a cwt. The other members of the Government and I have given the matter very full consideration.
I should not have referred to the question of Free Trade or Protection at all had it not been for the observation of the hon. Member opposite, but I will say this: If I believed that, in the proposal I am just going to make to the Committee, I violated the principles of Free Trade, I would not make it. This is what we propose. We propose that there shall be an Excise duty, equivalent to the existing preferential Customs duty, put upon sugar manufactured in this country. Of course, the sugar will get the advantage of that preference. Therefore, an Excise duty of 9s. 9d. would he put upon beet sugar manufactured in this country, and we propose that they shall get a subsidy of 19s. 6d. per cwt. The advantage of that, from the Exchequer point of view, is that it leaves the Chancellor of the Exchequer entirely free in the future to deal with the Sugar Duty. He may reduce it, or abolish it altogether, but there would not arise this question which has arisen as a result of the recent reduction in the Sugar Duty.
A very crucial matter in this connection is being able to get a sufficient supply of beet at prices which will encourage the farmer to produce. And we have come to the conclusion that it will be necessary to fix the subsidy at such a figure as will enable the manufacturer to give a price for the beet which will be an encouragement to the farmer. We have considered the question of a possible subsidy to the farmer, but after looking at the question from every point of view we came to the conclusion that there was grave objection to that course. Representatives of the National Farmers' Union, and others who take a good deal of interest in this question in various parts of the country, were of opinion that a price of 54s. per ton would be necessary to attract new growers to a district. But we have come to the conclusion, after weighing all the evidence, that such a high figure as that is not necessary, and that the subsidy which we propose to give will enable the price of 44s. per ton to be given to the beet grower.
There is not, so far as we can discover, any case in the world where a beet sugar
industry has been developed except with the assistance of the State. Holland has an exceedingly flourishing beet sugar industry, which supplies the whole of Holland's needs, and leaves a considerable surplus for export, and that industry received assistance in its early years, though for a long time back it has been entirely self-supporting. Therefore, after full consideration, we have come to the conclusion that a period of 10 years is necessary during which State assistance is required to enable the industry to get upon its feet, and develop sufficiently to stand alone. There are many reasons why that is necessary. We all know what a conservative lot the farmers are, and it will require a long time to induce them to adopt new methods. We believe, however, a period of 10 years will be sufficient for that purpose, and the subsidy might be upon a diminishing scale during that period. That would have the further advantage of supplying an incentive for the erection of factories in the earlier years, when the subsidy is higher.

Sir LEONARD LYLE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that subsidy is to be given on the refined sugar, or merely on the raw sugar?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I think it is going to be given on all sugar which is produced in this country. We suggest the rate of 19s. 6d. should be subject to a falling scale. It might be reduced to 13s. in four years, and again reduced to 6s. 6d. after a further three years. And at the end of 10 years, it might he removed altogether, and, as I said before, Excise duty at the appropriate rate would be charged from the outset, so that the net cost to the Government would be only 9s. 9d. per cwt. when the subsidy is being paid at the full rate. Legislation will, of course, be necessary to carry out this proposal. I may say a word or two as to the possible effects of the proposal. We are assured that if this subsidy were granted, about half-a-dozen new factories would be started almost at once, which means the employment of a great deal of labour in the production of the machinery. I am told a new factory costs about £200,000, representing the employment of a great deal of labour, and this expenditure would be incurred in this country. A good deal of labour would also be employed in growing the beet, and bringing
it to the factories. I understand that a, sugar factory at present employs between 500 and 600 men in the winter, and a smaller number in the summer.
May I take the Committee so far into my confidence as to say that I approached the consideration of this question, I will not say with hostility, but certainly not in a favourable or sympathetic frame of mind. I have given very long consideration to it, and the more I see of its possibilities, the more enthusiastic I become. I believe it is one of the very biggest things that can be done for British agriculture. I believe it will revive British agriculture, and restore rural England, and I am confident, so successful will the early stages and the early experiments be, that the areas devoted to sugar-producing purposes will extend until this country is in a position to produce a great part of the sugar which it requires. I think it is necessary, if the scheme we are going to propose is to be carried through, that it should be carried through, I will not say with the unanimous approval of the House of Commons, but at least with a certain measure of agreement among all parties. Whether we shall be able to secure that agreement or not I do not know, but I believe very strongly in its possibility, and I should very much regret if this proposal were not carried into effect.
I most sincerely apologise to the Committee for the long time I have occupied, but my statement has been necessarily long, and I want to assure hon. Members in this connection that I have taken the earliest opportunity of making it. As I stated at the commencement, I do not object to these little party pleasantries. I do not object to being reminded that we had a positive remedy for unemployment because, after all, the country will not judge the Government, when the next Election comes, on what it said at the previous Election, for the simple reason that there was no Labour Government at the previous Election. What the country will do will be to judge us, not on what we have said years ago, but on what we have done here and now. I, at any rate, have not the slightest fear. When the achievements of the Labour Government have been honestly and dispassionately
examined, I shall await with the utmost confidence the verdict of the country.

Dr. MACNAMARA: The Committee has listened to a very interesting speech, which has manifestly made a profound impression upon hon. Members. I make no complaint of the many sound economic propositions as to the importance of foreign trade and so forth with which the right hon. Gentleman opened his remarks, and do not suppose anybody will complain of them. Indeed, so fascinating was a great deal that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the earlier parts of his speech, when he enunciated those profoundly admirable economic doctrines, that while listening to him I forgot that what I wanted to know was: "What do the Government propose to do immediately to find work for the workers?" I shall not be guilty of a partisan speech, but I propose to apply a severely practical test to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, namely, to inquire how it is going to help immediately the people who are out of work? You can do that, and at the same time add to the productivity of the nation, and develop its resources. The most pregnant and far-reaching part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was that in which he outlined his proposals dealing with the development of electrical power. That is a very important statement, in my opinion, and as far as I am concerned, and I think I speak on behalf of others, generally speaking I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer "God speed" in the endeavour to which he has now put his hand.
If the remark is not regarded as being too partisan in character, I should like to say that I do not propose to refer to the fact that the Labour party declared that they had the only positive remedy for unemployment. I have said it often before, and I need not repeat it. But I would point out, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the other occupants of the Treasury Bench know it, that in-their appeal to the nation last year the Labour party urged the immediate adoption of measures—and I lay stress on the word "immediate"—to provide work for the people who are out of work on national schemes of a productive character. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman comes within hours of the close of the Session, and a great deal of the proposal which he has outlined
cannot be entered upon for a very long time. It is quite impossible to do so, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer never suggested otherwise. We have got this statement within a few hours of the close of the Session, and those of us who have wanted the Government to get a move on—as we have—may be prompted to take comfort from the fact that our importunity has produced this belated statement. I venture further to point out to those who joined me in getting the Government to get a move on, that our task is not completed yet by a long way.
Before I come to the statement that we have just heard, let me call attention to the unemployment figures I think the Chancellor was rather too optimistic. To me they are rather disappointing and disquieting. We began the year with 1,250,100 persons registered as wholly unemployed. We moved fitfully, but generally, in the right direction to the end of May, when there were 1,002,900. But the Chancellor rather overlooked the fact that during June and July the figure's have gone in the wrong direction. That is very curious at this time of the year. There is no question of seasonal depression. The 1,002,900 at the end of May had become 1,041,800 on the 21st, July—38,900 more than at the end of May That is very disquieting at this time of the year, and it does seem to me that it is very difficult indeed to get below that million. I wanted to get there many times, but drifted away again in the wrong direction. Here we are, at this time, going in the wrong direction. We all sincerely hope that that will not be maintained. We have to remember that, although we have over 1,000,000 unemployed, we have still as many people at work as we had in 1914. There is nothing for it but Trade recovery and expansion. There is nothing for it but the development of our national resources, and I would tell the Chancellor how cordially I agree with all he said in this respect. There is nothing for it but a more active policy, if I may say so, although it has not been mentioned here to-day, in regard to the use of the Empire Settlement Act. I am sorry that so little has been done in that direction.
To get the Chancellor's statement into its right place and in line with all the endeavours of the past, in this work-finding, work-making policy, you have
really go to go back to precisely a year ago, or rather a year ago on Friday the 1st August. Let me say how glad I ant that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has brought the Chancellor into this. He is the man, after all, who has got the money. He is the man who can make paper schemes real live actualities. The Minister of Labour may labour in vain unless he gets the Chancellor alongside of him with the cash. In the Debate initiated on the 1st August last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) the late Government laid before us—in "first broad outline" I think the phrase of Sir Montague Barlow was—its plans for the coming winter, the winter then before us, 1923–24. Hon. Members who were here then will remember that it is not too much to say that the House was greatly disappointed We believed that what was laid before us were the schemes which, in fact, we had left behind us when we went out of office in October, 1922. There were one or two comments made on the 1st August that I think I would like to recall to the Chancellor. The President of the Board of Trade, I remember, held up a pamphlet, which pamphlet contained the report of the joint conference of the representatives of the Labour Party Executive and the Trade Union Congress, on which he said:
Here is the Labour party's policy on unemployment which was published in January, 1921, and which sets forth the extension and the development of railways, waterways, docks and works of that kind"—
and he told us it ran into 45 pages of print. It is a fact. He said you could get £100,000,000 as soon as you liked, and you could do the work which was required if there was any desire to do it. I wonder if the President of the Board of Trade has ever mentioned his aim of securing £100,000,000 of work for the unemployed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer! He told us that here was the programme, three years old, that you ought to raise £100,000,000 to get on with it at once. I remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley, who initiated the discussion, said: "I think we might easily appeal to the country for a great public works loan for the purpose of spending it on works of a necessary and productive character." The statement we have heard to-day does not get down to brass tacks as much as I
should like in regard to its finance. It was an admirable proposition, economically, and a splendid conception of the development of electrical power, but what is it all going to cost? Is there any money there now, so that this thing may begin, because these men have been unemployed for a very long time? I am glad my right lion. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans) is here. He was one of the Ministers who told us how far the plans of the 1st August had, in fact, been expanded. We were then told—and the finance was much more precise than we have heard to-day—that, in fact, £50,000,000 was going to be made available by the then Government for giving work to the unemployed, and the then Prime Minister told us, or, rather, told the country shortly afterwards, that by far the greater proportion of that £50,000,000 would, in fact, be spent during the winter of 1923–24. The General Election intervened—and I cannot say that it had a very useful effect in securing an active prosecution of those work schemes, because it did not.
in that General Election, the Labour party became the very special champion of the unemployed man. I do not suppose anybody will deny that; I hope it is not looked upon as a partisan statement. They had had plans ready those three years, according to the President of the Board of Trade. This is what I want to put to my hon. Friend and the Chancellor of the Exchequer: Supposing any man had got up then and said, "Well, that may be so you have got the plans there all right, they have been ready three years, and yet six months after a Labour Government has been in office there are still 1,000,000 people unemployed!" Is there a Member of that Front Bench who would'nt have made that man sorry he spoke—well, when I talked like that my socialist friends made it very doubtful to me. as to whether I ever ought to have been born! Let us assess this statement properly and get it into its right place. I certainly do not underestimate its importance when looking at the White Paper, issued last Saturday and entitled: "Provision of work for relief of unemployment." That, I think, was the right thing. It shows how existing schemes are progressing. I am glad the Minister of Labour is here. That White Paper is rather illuminating. It takes.
first of all, the Unemployment Grants Committee awards to municipalities who put in hand relief works and the schemes under which the Unemployment Grants Committee pays 60 per cent. of the wages bill. I will take it first. Let the Chancellor follow these facts. Quite unintentionally, I think, he rather misled the Committee. Under that first heading—schemes where the Unemployment Grants Committee give assistance to the extent of 60 per cent. of the wages—it shows that this Government has had 223 schemes submitted to it. I will give my right hon. Friend the page. Page 5 of the table. It has approved 177.

Mr. SNOWDEN: A lot have come in since then.

Dr. MACNAMARA: A lot have come in since then, but it has approved of 177 in four months. It has allocated £144,000 in grants, according to that Paper, in the four months. It is in the table. But in the previous 10 months, when the late Government were in office—and they have been denounced on the ground that their schemes were wholly inadequate—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, certainly they have been denounced, as not seriously tackling the problem. In the 10 months, if you will look at that table, you will find that the late Government were responsible for 703 schemes, and they allocated £616,000. Let us be quite fair. The progress here, according to that table, is not so fast now as it was last year.

Mr. SNOWDEN: indicated dissent.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Well, I will make any comparison my right hon. Friend likes. I think his point was that the figures carried us beyond June. If that be so, I have nothing more to say. I am dealing with the printed document. I will take the grants which the Unemployment Grants Committee make towards the interest and sinking fund charges of works covered by loans. Five hundred of these schemes have been submitted to the present Government. Four hundred and two have been approved. New loans to the extent of £3,750,000 have been approved in the four months, according to the document—although there is a footnote to say that other provisional sums have been granted which will provide work of, say, over
£4,500,000. In the previous 10 months £16,500,000 was approved for grants. Again, the pace is not so fast as last year. I want immediately to help the workless man, and I do not care who does it. Unless I do not understand that document at all—and the Minister of Labour will correct me—I say that, according to that document, the Unemployment Grants Committee is not getting ahead with the rapidity which it was doing last year, and I am bound to make that point when I come to consider the prospective value of the schemes, the remarkable schemes, put forward with such sincerity by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I want to see how they are going to be applied, how they are going to get on with them. I will tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer why it is going a little slower. The fact is that municipalities have found the task of financing relief work year after year increasingly onerous. That is the trouble. They do not find it more difficult to find the men to take the work. They find it more difficult to make work and finance work. Next winter is going to be the fifth winter in succession. I really do think—I say this with great respect and not as a partisan at all—the Chancellor ought to consider if he is going to get the co-operation of the municipalities in these great electrical schemes, with grants which do not seem to me to err on the side of generosity.
6.00 P. M.
I do think he has got to consider whether his grant to these municipalities, who have so finely co-operated with us, ought not to be on a rather more generous scale. I am quite sure they will go on doing splendidly, and I hope, as I have no doubt, they will throw themselves into the electrical power development schemes. But do not let us make it too hard for them. The Chancellor spoke of the excess of local rates, but the interest on the loans which have been piled up has increased these local rates very heavily. I come to the Chancellor's roadwork. Take arterial roads. We were told on the 1st August last year—unless I have got it all wrong—that £7,500,000 would be found last year from the Road Fund to be dispensed to the local authorities that put in hand repair work on arterial roads; and, further, in October, we were told that, over and above this £7,500,000, which was dispensed on the 50–50
Principle, there would be a direct Treasury grant of £14,000,000 for new roads and new bridges. The figures in the White Paper bear no relation whatever to those facts, if I have got them right. The Road Fund appears only to have contributed £2,884,000 last year, instead of £7,500,000. The answer may be that the amount has been hypothecated, and that the whole balance will be absorbed in later years. I hope it is. I admit this is much more a matter for the late Government than the present Government. As regards the £14,000,000 of last October to find work for these workless men, all-the information I can get about it is this. Paragraph 3 says:
There are not yet sufficient data upon which to base a forecast of the rate of expenditure, but the grants promised represent a Government contribution of £7,100,000. and the whole of the balance has been hypothecated to definite schemes. The cost of this programme will fall largely on future years, and the actual disbursements up to 31st March, 1924, were approximately £32,000.
I do wish the late Prime Minister had been present to hear these words, if he has not read them already. It must not be forgotten that the great proportion of the £50,000,000 was to be spent last winter, and we get clown to an expenditure last winter of £32,000. The next paragraph entirely perplexes me. It is:

ROAD AND BRIDGE (FEBRUARY, 1924) PROGRAMME.

A further programme estimated to cost £13,500,000 has been authorised by the present Government, towards which the Road Fund will contribute a maximum of £10,400,000."

May I ask what this "Road and Bridge (February, 1924) Programme" is? Has Parliament sanctioned it? Is it partly contained in the statement we have just had, or is it a scheme of roads and bridges about which the Chancellor spoke, entirely outside anything in this White Paper, or is it partly covered by anything in the White Paper?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Could not the Minister of Labour, who must have seen the White Paper, explain why the figures differ from those given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The Minister will take part in the discussion later. It is a very simple point. Here you have a "Road and Bridge (February, 1924) Programme." Is that part of the scheme of
which we have just heard, or is it a scheme involving an entirely new provision of money? I should be glad if it is. Whether it is or is not, has Parliament sanctioned this new Road and Bridge Programme, and has my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour got Parliamentary powers? He will certainly want them in regard to some of these engineering schemes, and it is no good putting schemes on the Paper which have to wait a year or two for Parliamentary powers, which will not help unemployment at the present time.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. T. Shaw): The £13,500,000 is for entirely new works. As far as I am advised, the only question that requires Parliamentary powers to deal with any of these roads and bridges is the question of the £5,000,000 that was proposed to be devoted to arterial roads on entirely different terms and entirely different conditions from those, previously.

Dr. MACNAMARA: For that you may require Parliamentary powers?

Mr. SHAW: Possibly.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have not yet been told whether this £13,500,000 in this programme is included at all in the Chancellor's statement?

Mr. SHAW: The £13,500,000 has nothing to do with any schemes laid down by the previous Government.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I did not ask for that. I am not pressing this out of pure partisanship. We are entitled to know the facts. What I am asking is whether that £13,500,000 covered any part of the Chancellor's statement to-day? Take the roads mentioned—the Liverpool-Manchester Road or the Edinburgh Road. May I take it that the Chancellor's statement is entirely outside anything now in existence or contemplated, and that fresh money will be required for everything he put forward? I really do not think that is the case. I think it will he found, when you go into it, that some of the Chancellor's statements are really hidden away in this paragraph I have read, "Road and Bridge (February, 1924) Programme." I should like to turn for a moment to the other statements in the White Paper, because they are more important to those trying to find work which will add to the wealth of the nation, because it must not
be supposed, as the Chancellor seemed to think, that because you do something immediately, you are not ultimately adding to the wealth of the nation. That, of course, is not the case. Take "Miscellaneous Schemes involving work undertaken to relieve unemployment," including land drainage, water supply, forestry, light railways and Scottish schemes. Observe that last year for those schemes they voted an Exchequer grant of £401,694. The present Government, having denounced that as wholly inadequate, make a provision of £430,000. There are the facts. I admit land drainage, water supply and Scottish schemes get a lift. Take forestry. I remember the Prime Minister, on the 29th May, when we were discussing work for these poor unfortunate people, waxing very eloquent on forestry. The Treasury found £100,000 in 1923–24; this year it is going to find £30,000.

Mr. SNOWDEN: indicated dissent.

Dr. MACNAMARA: The Chancellor contradicts me. He ought to know. The statement shows that past expenditure by the Exchequer on forestry for 1923–24 was £100,000. Provision for 1924–25 by the Exchequer on forestry was £30,000.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The Minister of Labour will deal with it.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I agree with the Chancellor about the importance of transport. Take the White Paper again. The Treasury found, in 1923–24, under the auspices of the late Government, £65,700 for Light Railways. It is proposed this year to find £25,000. The Chancellor did not deal with that, and unless a great deal has been clone since the beginning of June, his figures were "all adrift," as the sailors would say. Under Export Credits there are "Advances," "Specific Sanctions" and "General Credits." Advances remain exactly where the Government found them in the four months covered by the Paper. Additional specific sanctions for £480,000 have been granted. Additional general credits are up by £60,300 in the four months. There is nothing very headlong about all that. I really must judge the Chancellor's wonderful statement by the sort of force which has been put into the schemes which they were operating. Otherwise, how am I to judge? Take
Trade Facilities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated quite accurately, if I may say so with respect, that the maximum of contingent Exchequer liabilities has been raised from £60,000,000 to £65,000,000. He cannot take much credit for that, because, unless I am much mistaken, the late Government would have raised it to £75,000,000. Certainly the King's Speech of the late Government did propose to deal with the matter. As regards the guarantees, the Chancellor spoke about the additional amount issued. He spoke of the guarantees having gone from £38,000,000 to £48,000,000. I am quite sure it was not his intention, but it strikes me as a most misleading statement. The amount on the 9th November, 1923, was £38,205,000, and additional guarantees £7,500,000, but the White Paper says "Additional guarantees in period 10th November, 1923, to 31st May, 1924." The present Government do not take in the period beginning 10th November. They were certainly not exercising some sort of occult influence over the right hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite. In regard to the £38,000,000 to £48,000,000, you cover the period which includes quite a considerable time when you were not in office. I really do not think that these things are meticulous. I am all for this scheme of electrical power development, and I want to put some stuff into this Government to get on with it. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh!"] Yes, we will do it all right. That is the way the Government is carrying on the schemes which we inaugurated. The Government entered into a heritage of very good schemes. They had not this scheme of electrical power development, which is on a much greater scale, and which strikes a fine imaginative note which I cordially endorse. But how has it carried these schemes on? If I understand this White Paper, they have carried them on in rather slow time. That is what it comes to. How in the face of this White Paper the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General—I wish he were here—could go to his constituents last Sunday, and say what he did beats me. What he said was:
More has been done by the Labour party than I in my wildest dreams, could ever have believed possible.
That really will not do! [An HON. MEMBER: "On a Sunday, too!"] I do
not raise any point about it being Sunday. I wish the Government well in its endeavours to meet the situation, but I am afraid that a lot of their schemes are going to be in the rather dim and distant future. There are great schemes that will add to national wealth, but what about the million men out of work to-day? We had schemes three years ago, cut and dried for immediate application. It is only to-day, nearly at the last hour of the Session, that we have been able to get this much.
I want to ask one or two questions about the schemes now being operated, about the new roads and bridges which may or may not be in the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—nobody appears to know. Is there any additional provision anywhere for these great schemes in this financial year—in the Budget—for the great scheme which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put before us? Is a farthing of the expenditure which will be involved in it if started in this financial year covered by Parliamentary sanction, and will the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government go ahead at once to meet the immediate needs of the people with these schemes so far as they pan and come back for covering sanction? We should all of us, I am sure, be very glad to back them up with Parliamentary sanction. [An HON. MEMBER: " You did nothing in your time!"] Yes, the Government are carrying out the schemes in slow time to-day for which I and others were largely responsible. The next question is one relating to Parliamentary powers as to the bridges and roads—I am not referring to the bigger scheme of electrical power—but for these more immediate matters. Are Parliamentary powers necessary? If so, when are you going to get them? After all, we shall not be back till the end of October and winter will be close upon us. It is no good putting schemes on paper unless you are ready to go ahead with them. Take the bridges and the roads which the right lion. Gentleman the Minister of Labour knows so well. Take the Liverpool to Manchester road. Are the engineering plans now ready? Have the specifications been made? Have proper surveys been made so that they can go ahead? I press these questions, and I make no apology for doing so. The matter is very important for those out of work. I sit down with one request, and
that request is this: that the Government should issue a monthly progress report beginning, we will say, on the 1st of September, showing, in fact, how many additional men have been found work in connection with the schemes about which we have heard to-day.

Mr. HOFFMAN: How should we be expected to do what you did not?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I should doubt very much whether there are many more men who are at work to-day than they were 12 months ago on these schemes—that is all. I ask, therefore, for a monthly progress report showing how many men, who would be otherwise unemployed, have got work because of these schemes mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The plea I make is this: Let the Government press on with these schemes for all it is worth. We shall back them up for all we are worth. This thing is very urgent. These people have suffered great hardship for a long time; they are now drifting on to the fifth winter of hard times. Therefore, my one last word to the Government is this: Press on with this; do not waste time; and you shall have all the support we can possibly give you.

Mr. J. C. GOULD: This is the first time since I have been in this House that I have heard the admission from the Government of a matter which has been pressed on every possible occasion by those of us who belong to the Conservative party, and also by hon. Members of the Liberal party. It is that the costs of production are too high, and that the hours of labour which are worked to a very great degree in the highly specialised and skilled trades and industries need some revision, and in consequence we have been fighting the costs of production so that we might help employment in the industry. I wonder if hon. Gentlemen opposite have a full realisation of what the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer really means, and if the right hon. Gentleman himself has contemplated the trouble with which he will be confronted by his own supporters when he attempts to bring the recommendations he has made before the labour federations, the engineering trade, or the Trade Union Congress? This is one of the points which we, who are large employers of labour, have been fighting
the federation on for many years. This is the primary reason why the shipping and shipbuilding trades are being forced out of this country into foreign countries, and it is the reason why 137,000 people are unemployed in the shipbuilding industry. The lines of demarcation which have been set up by the various trades unions—there are 39 in the federation—make it impossible for work to be done in this country at anything like the price it may be done abroad. Ships are being sent abroad to be repaired largely because of demarcational differences. On the top of that there is a very large profit for foreign repairers, for they can do the work at 20 to 40 per cent. cheaper than it can be done in this country.
A remarkable fact also is this: that the work is being done, controlled and supervised to a very great extent by the very workmen who have been born and bred in this country, and who have been driven out of this country by the intolerable conditions imposed by the trade unions—[HON. MEMBERS "And the employers!"]—and who are working there under conditions of hours and overtime which enable them to earn considerably more money than they could earn in this country. Explanations have been made as to the cause of the unemployment in the shipbuilding industry, and there is considerable in the marine engineering and in the general engineering industry. It is all very well for Mr. John Hill to complain, as he has done recently, that this is all the fault of the employers or the Government, but Mr. John Hill must not forget that for over 30 weeks last year, through the action of the boilermakers, which he controlled, people were thrown out of these industries, and millions of pounds' worth of work was driven from this country abroad.
If the Labour party carry out the pledges and promises which they gave to the country; if they carry out what they promised when they were in opposition; when they told us that they had all kinds of schemes; when they gave us the assurance by virtue of the fact that they were so closely associated with the Labour movement and the trade union movement that they would be able to have a better understanding than we could get, or than the Liberal party could get, will be well. As a matter of fact, things have been intolerably worse since they
came into office because they can only go so far. They dare not take the matter into their own hands. There is no doubt whatever that so far as indutry is concerned the Labour party have shown a greater degree of weakness in dealing with industrial problems than either the preceding, the Coalition Government or even the Government which was in existence during the War. The advances which were given in war-time, and which we had to give under special circumstances, were continued very largely up to 1920, when conditions of competition throughout the world forced us to realise that we could not maintain the high wages and conditions and maintain our people in employment. Conditions have been imposed upon us on every occasion possible by the trade unions in our industry which have been out of all comparison with those obtaining in other countries, and as a consequence we find, where we should expect the trade unions involved in these industries inclined to give support to the Labour Government, that the Labour Ministry itself has taken its orders practically from these people, and dare not interfere. We talk about the Washington Convention. We talk of the 48 hours' week. There are half a dozen countries which have given lip service to the agreement. It was to be an international agreement. We were to work 48 hours per week. We have cut our hours in the engineering, the shipbuilding and the steel trades, and we are working 47 hours per week. What do we find to be the case in other countries?
In Holland, notwithstanding the answer which was given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour a few days ago, they do not work 48 hours a week, but 56½, while overtime up to 10 hours per week is allowed. As soon as they have finished their work in one yard—I know this from personal observation—as soon as they have finished their eight or 10 hours in one yard, they go to another yard on the opposite side and work another two or three hours. They do that every day. These are British workmen, members of the trade unions of this country. What are, they doing in Germany? The answer given to the Parliamentary Secretary was that they are working 48 hours in Germany. But the Minister of Labour knows that
since the 1st January of this year it has been set aside, and they are working in Germany to-day on an average in the Ruhr district 58 hours a week. [An HON MEMBER: "To pay your reparation!"] But we have not had it yet! In one place the hours are 61 per week, in Breslau 55. in Stuttgart 58, in Magdeburg 67 and Mannheim 61. France has also done lip service to the 48-hours week, but there everything is done by administrative Order and the rule is that there is a 10-hour working day. It will be objected at once that, though other people do these things, nevertheless we should keep to the strict letter of our agreement. That is all very well; but what we have to do is to realise that the industries of this country cannot go on in competition with foreign countries, in the export trade, if they are met with unfavourable and unfair conditions from their foreign competitors. We who listen so much to the talk of internationalism ought to realise that if we are foolish enough to believe what other people tell us, and to do as they ask us, that we are making a great mistake. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour passes quietly and easily over the question of costs in connection with production, and its effect upon unemployment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was glad to see we were obtaining 99 per cent. of our proportion of export trade. Has he considered that in the year 1913 in the engineering trade 72 per cent, of what was produced was for export while to-day it is only 24 per cent. Does he realise the great fall in the coal export-trade and its consequent unemployment? Does he realise that in the Tyneside industries today there is a percentage of unemployed of nearly 21 per cent? There is 27 per cent. of unemployment in ship building, and on the North East Coast the percentage is 32.5. In the case of canal, dock, river and harbour services, and the dockers and transport workers, it is about the same percentage, and shipbuilding comes second with 21.3 per cent., while the figures are 14.9 in the steel industry.
The right hon. Gentleman claimed that that was largely due to the fact that goods were not available for international transport. That may be so, but, as I understand the situation, the attempts which are being made by the Government and their advocates in the country to
re-open trade with Russia and Germany in particular, under the conditions they propose, can only react still mare unfavourably on the people of this country, and will result in the closing down of more of our steel and iron works. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, despite the rate of exchange being in their favour, steel is produced in Belgium, the Ruhr and Northern France at £2 per ton less than we can sell it in this country, and the manufacturers here are in every instance selling their steel between £1 and 30s. below the cost of production? We may be sure that foreign firms are not sending their steel over here without having made in the first place a considerable profit. First of all they ascertain the price at which stuff can be produced here in competition, and then sell at a price about 10 per cent. below it. I know what is done with regard to the engineering shipbuilding trade and ship repairing. Now we are talking about a proposal to grant a loan of £40,000,000 to Germany in order to rehabilitate her industries—

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Entwistle): The Debate has been getting very wide, but I do not think I can allow reparations to be dealt with.

Mr. GOULD: I was only saying by way of illustration that the result of that loan would be to increase unemployment in this country—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is the Vote for the salary of the Minister of Labour, and the discussion must be confined to the administration of his Department.

Mr. GOULD: The Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed the opinion that in certain of our big industries where unemployment was greatest, there had been a considerable influx of labour. That is true of the mining industry, and the conditions which arose largely during the War cannot easily be remedied. The proposals now being made to deal with the mining industry by the Liberal party and which are supported by the Labour party, cannot in any way decrease unemployment, but must add considerably to the cost of the coal produced. In regard to unemployment in the steel industry, I have figures relating to one of the biggest of our steel works, and they show that unemployment is largely due to the cost
of coal. The Government have not the courage to deal with the true cause and make it clear that the eight-hour day in the mines is the only solution of the troubles of the steel and engineering industry, and because of the powerful influence those people exert it is impossible and unthinkable that any change can be brought about.
I would like to ask, in considering the shipbuilding and engineering trades, is the right hon. Gentleman giving serious thought to the position which will arise about January or February next year. In January and February last year a very large number of orders were placed, and most of them will run out by the end of this year, and there is very little likelihood under present conditions of any further orders being placed, and at the present moment there is no indication of inquiries at all. What is going to happen and what provision is going to be made for the thousands of people who will inevitably be thrown out of work in this way? These electrical power schemes and drainage schemes may be all very well, but they are not going to provide employment for all these people. Subsidies have been given in Holland to subsidise industries, and I will explain exactly what has occurred in Holland in the shipbuilding industry. I get my information from an authoritative source and it may be taken as being correct. It is as follows:
as a result of my inquiries I am convinced that the Dutch companies receive financial aid. There is a law which enables the Government and the municipalities to give financial assistance to companies to secure work, and instead of having men on the dole the firms are given grants. The subsidies in Holland represent 75 per cent. of a person's former earnings, which means that a man earning £4 a week would be entitled to receive £3. The subsidies granted represent 30 per cent. of the labour cost, and 20 per cent. is provided by the municipality and 10 per cent. by the Government.
I commend that to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a much more desirable way of dealing with the unemployment question in certain industries than the existing system. It is idle to say that the men can be employed by reconditioning old boats, because no men could be profitably employed on that kind of work either with advantage to the owners or the workers themselves. There is no doubt that in attempting to deal with this matter the Minister of
Labour is forgetting to deal with the real cause, and until the Government take their courage in both hands, and tackle these trade union restrictions it will be impossible for us to compete with foreign countries and regain that proportion of our export trade, which is so essential to our national well being. Only last week 14,000 tons of rails were lost to one firm, and the men employed by that firm were thrown out of employment as a consequence of unfair foreign competition. At the present time American and German firms are undercutting us 25 per cent. at a time when the people here are starving for the want of work.
As a consequence of the system of doles in this country as against the Dutch system of subsidies, we are not working continuously, and as a consequence our costs are very much higher than if we were working steadily and continuously. It would be much better to take into account this industry, and see if it is not possible to evolve some scheme which will secure the co-operation of both sides rather than allow the present system to be maintained. The Minister of Labour will probably say that if there is going to be any cheapening in the cost of production and any increased employment, the big firms should re-equip and modernise their plants. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that for four years those engaged in this particular industry have been steadily and continuously losing money, and they are not in a position, in consequence, to find the wherewithal to modernise their plants, while our competitors are receiving grants and assistance from their Governments, and they are modernising their plants out of all recognition.
I hope when the Minister of Labour replies that he will say what he proposes to do in dealing with the trade union question, because that is the root of the whole trouble. If the Government are afraid to deal with this question, let them say so frankly. I believe at the present moment, although the Government may claim that they were not responsible for what they said at the Election, they still have a great responsibility after accepting office, and even if they have not been in power, they are responsible, and there will be a great deal of sceptical interest taken in any apologies they make for having done so little during the last six
months. You may be able to fool some of the people for some considerable time, and that is what the Government have done, but they will not be able to fool the people much longer with promises which do not give the people work. Up to the present we have only got from the Government promises, and very little else.

Mr. W. MARTIN: In rising for the first time, I appeal for that indulgence which is usually shown to those hon. Members delivering their maiden speeches. I take it that the purpose of this Debate to-day is not simply to make political capital out of the distresses of the unemployed and the under-employed; I take it that the purpose is to try and ascertain what can be done for the unemployed man, and I make bold to say that if we are going to be able to achieve that object, we must understand what is the nature of the unemployment problem, and every one of us must try to put the best of our knowledge into the common pool so that we may be able to evolve the best schemes and the best solution for unemployment. I would suggest that if we are going to understand what the problem of unemployment is, we must go back many years and consider the general policy of industry and the increasing productivity of the country by means of improvements in machinery and so so, and compare it with the position to-day when you find in every workshop and warehouse a great mass of products, but. unfortunately, without the people having the purchasing power to buy them.
While to-day the country is producing the goods it is not giving the necessary purchasing power to the mass of the people to buy back these commodities; we must therefore find ways and means of giving that purchasing power to the people in order to be able to overcome the great problem of unemployment. I believe that the acts of past Governments have done much to make that position even worse than it is to-day. I do not propose to go into what those acts were; if I did I should probably be called to order; but the fact remains that questions like the cutting down of wages in industry during the past few years, involving a loss in wages of at least £600,000,000 to the wage-earners of this country, have done much to reduce the purchasing power of the people.
It has sometimes been said, and it has been said even quite recently, that the Labour party made great promises during the recent election, and have said that they have the only cure for unemployment; and we have been twitted with not bringing in that solution immediately. I am one who believes, both as a member of the Labour party and as a Socialist, that we have the only cure for unemployment. The cure for unemployment is to remove the system which to-day is run in the interests of a few people, so that they may make profits for themselves and produce goods for that end rather than for supplying the needs of the great mass of the people. Only when we are able to change that system of allowing the few to levy a toll upon the industries of the country, only when we are able to build up a system that will call out the best services of the whole people, shall we be able effectively to abolish unemployment. That will be the ultimate end and the ultimate aim of the Labour party; but if we went the length of saying that we were going to wait until we were given power by a majority in the constituencies of this country to carry out that policy, I think the Labour Minister and the whole Cabinet under the Labour party would be failing in their duty.
It is, therefore, for the Labour party to try to do all that they can to increase the purchasing power of the people, even at the present moment, and I believe that the Labour party have at any rate started towards that. They have not done all that we should like to see done, but they have started, in one way and another, to increase the purchasing power of the people. Through the Labour Budget they have done much to make it easier for the working classes of this country to buy back more of the commodities that have been produced by them than was ever possible before; while the. Minister of Labour's proposals to increase the benefit paid to unemployed men or women, although they are evidently an indication that still there is a belief in doles, which I believe every Member of the House would like to get rid of at the earliest possible moment, nevertheless put more into the pocket of the ordinary working-class woman who is responsible, as the chancellor of the exchequer of a working-class home, for the purchasing back of the
commodities produced by the workers of this country.
These are steps in the right direction, but at the same time the extent of the problem of unemployment to-day demands that we should, until we reach normal times, go on producing more schemes that will give employment to people who to-day are unemployed. On this I want to say candidly that I am disappointed that the Labour Government have not been able to find such schemes, or to mature such schemes, earlier than they have, but I equally believe that the statement made to-day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes a considerable distance beyond anything we have yet heard from the Front Bench. I hope and believe that, when these schemes can be put properly in hand, we shall find that something considerable is being done in regard to the unemployment problem. Had I been speaking in this Chamber the other day, when we were considering the question of housing, I think I should have been able to show that the Housing Bill which has just passed through this House will at any rate do much to provide more employment for the people of this country, but I will not develop that argument here.
I think there is a growing realisation, by every person of good will in this country, that one line at any rate which lends itself to greater development than has been the case up to now is that of finding some national scheme of electric power. In the statement that has been made from the Front Bench to-day it hag been indicated that immediate steps are going to be taken to bring forward such a national scheme. If that scheme is put on its feet, I think it will be for the benefit of the country, because it will be doing something which will not merely be in the nature of digging holes and filling them up again, but will be producing schemes that will be for the benefit of the nation, not only in the near, but in the distant future. I would suggest that, if the Government go ahead with such a scheme, they should do so along such lines that the electric power system of this country will be able to be used in the interests of the people of this country, and not only in the interests of a very small section of that people.
Whether such an electric scheme be put into operation this year or next, whether
it even be done by the present Government or by some future Government returned after another General Election, whenever and by whomever it is introduced, I am sure it will be found to be for the benefit of the country in the future. The quicker it is done the better will it be for the people of this country, and the sooner shall we be able to a considerable extent to decrease the present number of unemployed people, and to set the trade of this country back towards a more normal time, when people will no longer feel that they have to depend on the dole, which we all deplore, but when every man and woman willing to work will have a chance of that human right—the opportunity of working and of being paid decent wages for their work.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and whom I congratulate on his maiden effort in this House, has, with the candour which would be expected of him, revealed to us what the intentions of the Labour party really are. He said that they have a remedy for unemployment. It has not yet been tabled; it is not even in the hat; but it is awaiting the next General Election, when there will be a Labour majority. It is the abolition of private enterprise, of private ownership of mines and factories, of all private property, and general confiscation of all the industries of this country. That is the scheme which is awaiting us when this majority is obtained which the Attorney-General is promising us, or, rather, with which he is menacing us. That is the scheme which will then be formulated by the hon. Gentleman and his friends. It will involve brushing away the present effete and rather timid Front Bench. I gather from the hon. Gentleman's observations that he is rather disappointed with the rate of progress they are making, and that he will accelerate it when the opportunity comes.
Meanwhile, we have to deal with this very cautious, timid, and, may I say, rather imitative Government, and it is with their schemes that for the moment I am concerned. As to one or two of them I am not quite clear. Even from the very lucid, and, I may say, very luminous statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am not very clear what his
proposals are. I take, first of all, the question of beet sugar. I had some responsibility for the differential treatment of beet sugar. I think I was the first to propose it when I was a Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1909. I want to know exactly what the proposal is now. As I understand it, the duty was 24s. 9d. before the Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced it. It was then reduced to something like 11s. Preference would have made that 9s. odd—I think 9s. 9d.—so that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not intervened at all with his new proposals which he has developed to-day, an advantage of anything between 9s. 9d. and 11s. would have been given to the beet-sugar grower in this country.
7.0 P.M.
What is the right hon. Gentleman's proposal? I am not sure that I caught it, but I think his proposal is that he should put on an Excise duty of 9s. odd, and that he should give them a subsidy of 19s. That seems to me to leave them exactly where they were. They are certainly worse off than they were before the Budget of this year, and I do not see the advantage of this proposal. It is put forward as a scheme for regenerating the agriculture of this county. The Chancellor of Exchequer waxed very lyrical over this new proposal, and said that he was firmly convinced on reflection. He got more and more excited about it, the more he went into it. He said that when he approached it first of all, he approached it in a spirit, not merely of indifference, but of active hostility, but the more he got steeped in beet sugar the more did the idea ferment, and at last it has produced a sense of exaltation—I will not say inebriation—which has led him to see a vision of the whale agriculture of this country regenerated, reconstructed, renewed, resurrected—the rural population, which is now just marching to the towns, arrested. They will read the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal about beet sugar, and they will turn back. The poor rural people who are now congregating in slums in London and elsewhere will go back, and there will be factories and there will beet cultivated all over the land; and how? I want to know how; I want to know why. I cannot see—and I listened very carefully to every word that fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—in what respect
they are going to be better. When they had an advantage of 24s. per cwt., these factories were only employing 600 in winter and 200 in Summer. But now that there is an advantage of 10s., well, agriculture is going to be regenerated. I am perfectly certain the Minister for Labour will throw light upon the obscurities which have been left by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and make it quite clear in what respect this scheme is going to restore agriculture to its primitive glory in this land.
I now come to the question of electricity. I am the last man in the world to complain of this proposal, and I will tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or his representative (Mr. Graham), who I am glad to see here, why. He generally takes a more prosaic view of these things. He works them, out in figures, and the same glow has not fallen upon his spirit. What is the proposal? An admirable one. I felt a real pride when I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer developing, in a much more effective way than I could, the very things I have been urging for some time. In fact, he is going to restore the proposals of 1919. I am very glad of it. He is going to restore the Bill of 1919 to the position it was in when it was introduced by the Government of which I was the head. I am very grateful to him for the frankness with which he admitted that in that mutilated Bill the power efficiency was increased by 60 per cent. It is a very remarkable testimony, which I heard for the first time, because I have been told that we did absolutely nothing. However, that. Bill is going to be restored to the perfection which it had when it left the hands of the Government to cross the corridor to another place, and cruel Pagan hands were laid upon it. That is all right. I asked the President of the Board of Trade—and this is rather significant—a fortnight or three weeks ago whether this was to be done, and he said, "Oh, no, it was quite unnecessary." So some light has come to them, not before the last General Election. It is a light that has shone upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Committee within the last three weeks. The President of the, Board of Trade is still walking in darkness. He said it was unnecessary. [An HON. MEMBER: "Send him a
candle!"] I listened with great attention to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will do the same to me. Three weeks ago the Government decided not to do this. They have done it now. Why? They are now going to supplement it by proposals which some of us put forward a fortnight or three weeks ago; proposals which caused the most unutterable merriment to the Minister of Mines. In fact, the proposal of the, Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day is the great Liberal joke of the Minister of Mines. I wonder whether he sees the joke to-day, now that it is uttered in the solemn tones of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
But let me point this out. These things, we were told, were all ready before the last General Election. They were not even ready three weeks ago according to the President of the Board of Trade. This is something which is quite new. I am glad, but let me point out this. Take all the proposals which the Chancellor of the Exchequer put forward to-day in a speech of about one and a half hours' duration—not a minute too long, I am not complaining of that; it was an admirable exposition, if I may respectfully say so as an old Parliamentarian. Road grants on a great scale, grants the result of proposals put forward, first of all, in 1909 when the Road Board was created, and when the idea of taxing motors and taxing petrol was first started for the purpose of improving the road system of this country, a system under which—and I have had the figures from the Minister of Transport, and I thank him for the courtesy of supplying me with them—,£60,000,000 has been spent. These were all proposals started, then developed afterwards, by the Coalition Government and the late Government. This is not a scheme of the Labour party before they got into power.
What is next? The Chancellor of the Exchequer made very great play of export credits and trade facilities. All of those Bills were carried two or three years before the Labour Government came into power, and not much help did we get to carry them. On the contrary, when I proposed them at the same Box that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stood at today, I remember, when I sat down, the Leader of the Labour party got up and sniffed at them and said they were no good. To-day, they are proclaiming
them as their bulwark. That is what they are relying on; that is what they are boasting of. Every scheme propounded to-day is a scheme which has been put forward and initiated by other parties, so that when they said before the last General Election that they had schemes thought out, planned, and considered in every detail as a remedy for unemployment, they meant the schemes that were prepared for them by other parties.

Mr. DIXEY: The whole issue at the last General Election was unemployment, and there would not have been any General Election at all if it had not been for the importance of this issue. Whether you agree with us or whether you do not, you have to admit that at all events a tangible form was offered to the people of this country as part solution for unemployment. At the same time, what did the party on the Government side offer? We had a series of picturesque promises of a definite nature made by responsible leaders of the Socialist party who are at present occupying seats on the Front Bench, and we, as, a party, have to my mind a serious right of complaint, because I state very strongly that had it not been for the fulsome promises made by the other side we might have been occupying those seats to-day. I say this definitely, that the working men and women in this country believed when they looked at the election programmes and promises made by gentlemen opposite that they were to be fulfilled, in part at all events. Therefore they, to my mind, lost the real chance of having something done for unemployment by relying on the promises of gentlemen opposite.
I am not going to bore the House long. I feel very sincerely on this subject of unemployment. I am not an old Member of this House, and I cannot presume to make a debating speech, but I do say we have to-day, after six months of Socialist Government, not had one concrete proposition put on the Table with regard to this matter. I am surprised that Gentlemen opposite, who always pretend, at all events, and probably sincerely, that they know more of the working class condition than we do, were content to sit behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer and listen to the statement made by him today. To my mind it was a statement
containing not a solitary fact of work for one solitary man. As far as I can see from the Debate to-day, there has been no proof of a solitary extra man being found a concrete job since the Socialist party came into office. I want the country to appreciate that, and to realise that the next time Gentlemen opposite go to the electorate. There is nothing in the record of this Government since it came into office to point to one solitary thing being done for the benefit of working people. If Gentlemen opposite say that they have not got the power, why do not they have the pluck to put on the Table their own scheme and go to the country on it The learned Attorney-General, speaking at Wallsend the other night, said:
Of course we cannot cure unemployment, but we can if we get the power.
Why wait? That is what I ask the Labour Benches, if it is only power they are after. If all those learned gentlemen in the Cabinet are so sure of what the result would be, why do they not take their courage in both hands. There is only one other point I wish to make. I was extremely surprised to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, apparently, is not quite such a doctrinaire Free Trader as he pretended to be. I was surprised to hear that he was prepared to give what I think is quite a good subsidy to beet sugar. I cannot for the life of me see where the distinction is between what is proposed now and what I am in favour of. I always thought that, from the Free Trade point of view, there was no worse form of protection than bolstering up an infant industry. That, I always thought, was the Free Trade argument. I also assumed, after hearing the compliments from gentlemen below the Gangway to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the finest example of a doctrinaire Free Trader that we have at the present time. Then I find he is prepared, in a particular case, by the excuse of an Excise Duty, to do the very thing that all the Free Trade experts have always said was fatal to Free Trade, which is the encouragement of an infant industry. For these reasons, I cannot look with any confidence at all upon the various schemes which have been produced here. I am sorry for the Minister of Labour. I do not think there is a more uncomfortable man in the House
than the Labour Minister to-day. I do not make these few remarks out of any feeling against him. I am sorry for him. I, at all events, stand for a reform in our fiscal system, and, to my mind, any amount of consideration should be given and any amount of trouble should be taken in order to increase employment, but it cannot be done without some radical reform in our fiscal system. Until you protect your home industries there is no future for employment in this country.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I do not propose to follow the last speaker in his very interesting attempt to introduce a discussion on Free Trade versus Protection. I am sure that in his calmer moments he must see that the Housing Bill passed by this House, if allowed to operate, will certainly provide employment for very many thousands of men.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Not a bit of it. There is no unemployment in the building trade to-day.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am sure that under that Bill employment will be provided for any number of men. There are one or two omissions from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which we on these back benches very much regret. Many of us, in the first place, are exceedingly disappointed that no reference has been made to the necessity for a great expansion of afforestation. This subject has been repeatedly raised in this House, and we have been led to believe that schemes have been prepared by the Forestry Commission under the direction of the Government which would have found employment for several thousands of men. I trust when the Minister for Labour replies to-night he will be able to repair what was, I am sure, an unfortunate omission from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech. I should perhaps make a personal reference in this connection. When last I spoke on this subject in this House I said that in my opinion a great deal of the delay in sending forward schemes of afforestation was due to the political complexion of the Forestry Commissioners. I have since learned what this is not the case. The present Forestry Commission, although politically opposed as individuals to the present Government, have been doing their utmost to speed up schemes of afforestation Many of us had hoped this afternoon that a
Labour Government would have been able to go back to the pre-Geddes Committee days and put forward a scheme of afforestation which would provide employment for many years. I had also hoped that the Government would have indicated that they were bringing the Forestry Commissioners under a Minister of the Crown, and not leaving them suspended, like Mahomet's coffin, without anyone responsible for them in this House except the right hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Acland), who always rises from the Liberal benches.
There was a curious omission this afternoon in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech. He did not refer to the disposal of part of the valuable plant and property at Gretna. One would have thought that a Labour Government, faced with the difficulties we are faced with, but nevertheless pledged to certain principles of public ownership as against private exploitation, would have done its utmost to prevent the dispersal of what remains of this property at Gretna and to see that the property was used in the best interests of the nation as a whole. I do not for one moment imply that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has been remiss in his duty on this subject. We know the hon. Gentleman did everything that was humanly possible for any man to do to prevent the dispersal of that property, and therefore I do not wish to associate him with what I am now saying. I do suggest, however, that the Government as a whole is blameworthy and deserving of castigation, inside this House and outside, in so far as it has permitted valuable property to be disposed of at ridiculous prices.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Robert Young): The hon. Gentleman is getting very wide of the mark. This question is one which should be dealt with on the Vote for the Disposal Board.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I wanted to discuss the question of Gretna as it affected unemployment, and the. observations I have just made were only preliminary observations. Gretna, we have reason to believe was offered to the Government as a workable proposition by a Government Department which declared that it was able and willing to run it as a training ground for discharged soldiers and to use the works there to great advantage for the benefit of the nation, instead of the plant being
sold at rubbishy prices. I believe the proposal was to run it as a great national experiment on principles which some of us Members of the Labour party still firmly believe in. The plant still remaining at Gretna could be used by the Government profitably for the nation, and we on these benches this afternoon hoped to receive some assurance from the Government that that plant will not be disposed of by auction, but will be used by the Government and by the nation for the well-being of the nation. [An HON. MEMBER: "What do you mean by that?"] I am afraid I should be called to order if I went into further details, but I understand that the Army Department have offered the Government to take over Gretna and run it as a paying proposition, in connection with a training scheme on the retirement of men from the Army. I trust, to-night, before the Debate closes, some representative of the Government will be able to give us an assurance on these two points, first, that there will be a considerable expansion of the afforestation programme which shall be run scientifically in connection with land settlement, and, secondly, that we shall have an assurance that there shall be no further waste of public property at Gretna.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: The hon. Member who has just spoken has referred to two omissions from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I wish to deal with another omission—with the absence of any fresh hope that any additional support will be given to the local authorities who are administering the unemployed grant to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The right hon. Gentleman at some considerable length dealt with this question. He referred to the fact that unemployment throughout the country would be almost normal if it were not for the excessive amount of unemployment in those three staple industries—shipping, engineering and cotton. He told the House that if it were not for the abnormal unemployment in those three industries the average of unemployment for the whole country would be almost on a pre-War level. I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that the unemployment in these particular industries is hitting exceptionally hardly those districts where the in-
dustries are carried on. I find, according to the Ministry of Labour's own returns, that whereas on the 23rd June unemployment throughout the country as a whole was 9.4 per cent., on the North East Coast, where marine engineering and boiler making is carried on, it was 17˙9 per cent., and in the shipbuilding industry, also on the North East Coast, it was 32˙5 per cent.—in the one case double and in the other case more than treble the average for the whole country. The Chancellor went on to say that in his opinion, heavy as was the burden of taxation on industry, crippling it and preventing its revival, the burden of rating was even worse. Therefore taking those two admissions of the abnormal unemployment in shipbuilding and engineering, and the heavy burden of rating on industry, we have a right to ask that the Government should do something to relieve those districts which are so heavily penalised.

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member is going to discuss necessitous areas, that is distinctly covered in the next Vote.

Mr. THOMSON: I am referring merely to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and quoting the facts which he himself gave.

The CHAIRMAN: I am aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to taxation, but we cannot go over the whole field. There are three Votes down. On this Vote hon. Members have a right to refer to taxation in the same way that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did, but not to go into the merits or demerits of the grants to necessitous areas. That comes up on the next Vote.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: May I point out that the right hon. Gentleman did allude to the schemes of local authorities.

The CHAIRMAN: I understand this Vote was put down for the purpose of allowing the Chancellor of the Exchequer to indicate what the Government was prepared to do in relation to unemployment. In so doing, lie covered nearly every Department, or a good many Departments. It will be impossible to discuss the Ministry of Transport, the Mines Department and the Board of Agriculture in the way that is suggested. I am pointing out that what the hon. Member wants to discuss is down on the next Vote.

Mr. BIRKETT: The Chancellor of the Exchequer raised that matter to-day in general debate. Our purpose in regard to this matter was to submit that if these grants were not increased, the local authorities could no longer proceed and therefore the general wave of unemployment would be larger.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can refer to it but cannot discuss it on this Vote. If he wants to discuss it at all, he must expedite the passing of the first Vote, when it will be perfectly open on the next Vote.

Mr. THOMSON: I hope I may refer to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself said in dealing with this question, in so far as he told us that the Unemployed Grants Committee had sanctioned £5,500,000 of money up to the end of February and that their inspectors had gone throughout the country to encourage local authorities to submit schemes. I take it I may refer to those figures and make comments and draw conclusions from them. This sum of £8,000,000 which the right hon. Gentleman gave us as the estimate of expenditure by local authorities during the coming year is not adequate, and the reason I say so is that in reply to a question to-day the Chancellor of the Exchequer told me that last year, under the Unemployed Grants. Scheme, local authorities had spent £9,500,000. Things to-day, especially in certain districts—

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow that. If the hon. Member is going to discuss the matter of necessitous areas, he must wait till the next Vote comes on. It may come on very speedily for all I know.

Mr. THOMSON: I bow to your ruling, but I was wishing to comment on the fact that the Chancellor told us—

The CHAIRMAN: It was necessary for the Chancellor to make these references in explaining what is intended to be done. But if I were to allow everyone to pick up everyone else's remarks, we should never get to the point before the Committee. There is a special Vote which must be discussed now. Necessitous areas are included in the next Vote.

Mr. THOMSON: I regret that the Chancellor omitted to hold out any hope of additional assistance to those districts
which have borne the heat and burden of the day, and whereas these schemes of national work, such as electricity and beet, will take time to develop, there are other schemes which might be put in hand at once if only the Government will give the additional help. It is important that the immediate things should be done first, and I hope the Minister will be able to hold out some hope that, whilst preparing the electricity and the sugar and beet schemes, they can give more sympathetic attention to other schemes which are absolutely ready. With regard to the electricity scheme, one is interested indeed to see what the Government propose particularly, because I notice my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green at the beginning of last month introduced a Bill dealing with this important question of electricity supply following on the very lines the Chancellor of the Exchequer has foreshadowed. If the right hon. Gentleman will give facilities for passing that Bill it might enable him to get on with these larger schemes, which are so necessary, with even greater speed than he foreshadowed in his speech. I am sure the Committee will give every assistance to the Minister in these new schemes, and I only regret that they were not introduced earlier, especially in view of what hon. Members on these benches said exactly a year ago when they were dealing with this question. They stated then that they had a scheme ready, plans were preparing and were in the archives of various Ministries, and it was only necessary that they should be in power in order that they might be put into force forthwith. Now that they have the opportunity, I beg, as other hon. Members have begged, that they should not shelter themselves behind the excuse that they are in office and not in power, but should table these schemes and see whether there is a majority in the House in order to enable that programme of work and not doles to be carried out effectively and immediately.

Captain BRASS: I was very interested to hear what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to say. He told us distinctly that he had a positive remedy for unemployment, but he did not produce it. He produced one or two what might be termed lop-eared rabbits out of the hat. He told us something about the develop-
ment of canals, which he said would be of considerable help locally although they were really not an economic proposition. He told us about the railways, and his only solution was that they should be nationalised. It is rather a pity he should have suggested that nationalisation of railways at the present moment, because I understand the Government are supporting the Dawes Report in which we have exactly the reverse, and they advocate that the nationalised railways of Germany should go back into private hands when they might be made more remunerative. He said that next year he was going to spend £13,500,000 on roads and an extra £5,000,000 which I understand at present he is unable to spend on a road between Manchester and Liverpool. He told us about altering the frequency of electricity, which I do not understand very much, and then he told us the real trouble to-day was that the shipping, the engineering and the cotton industries had all been very badly hit, but he was careful not to say how he was going to remedy that state of affairs in this industry. His solution was that you should have a national reconstruction. That sounds all very well, but how is a national reconstruction, which is certainly going to take a period of years, going to be able to absorb the 791,000 males of employable age who are unemployed at present? During the period from 1901 to 1911 we had coming into industry every year, 203,000 males of employable age, of whom 75,000 emigrated and 128,000 had to be absorbed into industry in this country.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The old ones went out too.

Captain BRASS: No, that is the net increase. At present roughly 140,000 males of employable age come into employment every year, of whom 50,000 emigrate on the average, so that 90,000 males of employable age have to be Absorbed into industry every year. You have on the top of that 90,000 a surplus over and above what you had before the War of 770,000 men of employable age, with the result that it is almost impossible for these people to get employment. You have more men of employable age to-day employed in industry than you had before the War, and you have a surplus of 770,000 males of employable age more than
you had before the War. How you can employ those people by entering on a reconstruction of the country, I do not understand. I do not think there is any solution of the problem in that way. Before the War the surplus savings of the people were put into industry, so that the surplus male population was able to be absorbed into industry. That was when Income Tax and Super-tax together amounted to 1s. 8d. in the £. To-day, when it is 10s. 6d., the incentive to a rich man to put his surplus into industry is not there. [An HON. MEMBER "That is the War!"] It is due to the War, but that does not make any difference. It exists. What is the only real solution of the problem? As far as one can see, we have a certain population of 770,000 males of employable age in this country who are out of work. A big Empire settlement scheme, well thought out and on family and group emigration, would provide for these people. It was spoken about by the Prime Minister not very long ago. We ought to have a scheme of that sort in order to try to absorb this surplus population, which it seems to me it is quite impossible to absorb in industry in any other way.
The Prime Minister stated a little while ago that he was going into the question of Empire settlement. I am glad of that. He said most definitely in this House that he thought he could do it without Preference. That is a matter of opinion. I am a Free Trader. If it can be done without Preference, so much the better, but I want to impress this upon the Government, and it is a very important point, that if they find, after examination into the question of Empire settlement, that it is not practicable to have a big Empire settlement scheme to relieve the unemployment question in this country without Preference, I ask them most sincerely not to give it up simply because it is contrary to the principles of Free Trade. I ask them to look into it most carefully and try to see whether an Empire settlement scheme could not be advanced and people helped to go out and find employment in the Dominions, which in return would help forward reciprocal trade between the Mother Country and the Dominions.

Mr. ALDEN: I have every sympathy with the views of the hon. Member who
has just spoken in regard to Empire settlement, but he must remember, and we must all remember, that Empire settlement is a matter of very slow growth. We cannot plant any large section of our surplus population—if it be surplus, and we are not all agreed upon that—upon our Dominions without full consultation with them, and without the most careful inquiry as to the industries in which they could he best, employed, or how the Dominions would be best able to absorb that number of people. It seems to me that by group or colony settlement, after careful education and training beforehand, very much might be done.
I am not quite sure whether it will be in order to refer to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to electricity and the methods of cheapening production in this country. On that I wish to say a word of warning not only to the Government, but to the House, because we are so apt to be led astray by any big scheme. If it is a big scheme it appeals to us, and we say that is the solution, although it may not be a solution at all when we examine it carefully. If I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer aright, his point was that we must cheapen production if we are to be able to export, to improve our trade and pay our way. One of the methods by which he proposed to cheapen production is to encourage the construction of super-stations for the production of electricity throughout the country. He did not say that he is going actually to subsidise these super-stations, but indirectly he would subsidise them by being willing to subsidise the main cables throughout the country.
In the production of electricity coal plays the most important part. When we consider the cost of the coal that is used for the production of electrical energy, we find that the consumption of raw coal in a big electrical super-station is so great that, except for power purpose, in such an industrial district, for example, as the North East, where you can use it for power, light and heat, you cannot possibly produce electricity cheaply in competition with other forms of power. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he did not know very much about electricity or about electrical terms and electrical develop-
ment. There are, however, various reports that have been published. One report is the Report of the Coal Conservation Committee, with its subsidiary committee on electricity. Lord Haldane's Report has received very careful attention in many directions.
When the figures in regard to a super-station are examined, and the whole scheme is carefully inquired into, there are very few towns in England where you could put up a super-station. A super-station requires an enormous supply of water. The North East district is a success, because they have an ample water supply, cheap coal, and a huge industrial population in the immediate vicinity. They can supply their power at a very cheap rate, and they can supply light at a very reasonable and cheap rate. Incidentally, they are able to supply a good deal of heat, although that is much more costly and is quite subsidiary. When we look round England and we say, "Where shall we establish seven super-stations?" I defy anyone in this House to tell me where we could put up those seven super-stations. We could produce one on the Thames, in fact we are building one on the Thames, and we could perhaps put up one on the Severn, but I know no other place in the whole of England where we could properly put up a super-station. The cost of supplying electricity to far-distant towns away from the station is so great that it is hardly worth while doing it.
What I would like to see the Government do would be to appoint a Commission to discuss and examine the whole question of light, heat and power. We have not touched the question of gas in the Report to which I have referred. It is treated as a matter of no moment, although it is of supreme importance to remember that for every ton of coal that you consume you can produce five times as much heat by gas as by electricity. That is an important point which ought to have been mentioned. That is the sort of thing that the Government might bear in mind when they consider this question. Any large electrical scheme should be very carefully considered before vast sums of money are spent upon them. If they want to do the thing, they should consider the whole question of light, beat and power in regard to all forms of energy and heat.
We are all perplexed by the problem of unemployment, and we are far too apt to try to make party capital out of the problem. It is natural, no doubt, when we are in opposition to try to show up the failings of our opponents; but the unemployment problem is so serious that it is hardly worth while doing that. I remember that when the War came to a close I made a speech in public in which I said that we should have about two years of artificial prosperity, and after that we should have the biggest slump we had ever had in English history as far as employment was concerned. I said then that I could not see the end of it, and I do not see the end of it now. The War has severely crippled England; I am not sure that it has not crippled England to such an extent that we shall never be able fully to recover. In any case, do not let us hide from ourselves the fact that the Minister of Labour, whoever he may be, is confronted with a problem which is so difficult that he requires every person of goodwill to help him, and he needs every possible remedy or solution that can be brought to bear. That is why, when the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Captain Brass) referred to Empire settlement, I agreed that that was one of the things which we have to consider, as to whether it will not be necessary to aid people who cannot find work in England to go overseas.
In regard to our schemes at home, I wish a little more attention could be given to the problem of afforestation. Even though it would not employ a large number of men it would give some assistance. It is a question which has never been fully taken up, although we have had many Committees and Reports on the subject. We are a little too apt to believe that a scheme which is called a relief scheme, such, for example, as the drainage of waste land or the reclamation of waste land, is not productive. These schemes may be indirectly very productive in their effect. We all know that a great deal of valuable land has been reclaimed on the East Coast, and I do not see why more land should not be reclaimed. In any case, the money spent on these schemes is not wasted, whereas money that is spent in giving unemployment pay is often wasted. Many men who are out of work and doing nothing
become unfit for work and almost disinclined for work. That is the universal experience.
Therefore, although I quite agree that general relief schemes are not good, because they are not really and definitely productive, I have always found relief schemes, even though they are not productive in the best sense, are productive in this sense that they keep men employed, and give them wages for work done. In that way they preserve the moral of these men, and indirectly they are a great benefit to the community. I would not like to throw cold water on any scheme. Although a definite and concrete scheme has my support, I still feel that relief work, if it be of the right kind, and if, for example, it improves the amenities of the land around our towns by the provision of cricket fields, football fields, and tennis courts, is useful, because there is an indirect profit in it. Therefore, I shall support any effort of the Minister of Labour in those directions.

Mr. BIRKETT: I do not propose to delay the Committee long, because a matter on which I propose to speak has been excluded by a ruling from the Chair. Nor do I desire to enter into a disquisition on the various schemes put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are, however, one or two points which I desire to emphasise, and I hope the Committee will forgive me if I illustrate from the City of Nottingham. I was very pleased to hear the observation which fell from the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Alden) as to the desirability of all these schemes being considered by men of goodwill in all parties in this House. That is a view which I have long entertained and publicly expressed. I feel that on matters which vitally affect our national life—and this question of unemployment is one of the most important—all party feeling ought to be suspended, and all men of goodwill from all parties in this House and outside should unite to remove from our national life that which causes so much distress and unhappiness to people of all parties both inside and outside this House.
8.0 P.M.
Whilst I think it is infinitely desirable that that state of affairs should be brought about, there is a corresponding duty cast upon the Minister of Labour. If it be right, as I think it is right, that we should unite in putting party feeling
on one side in regard to these matters, there is a serious duty put upon the Ministry of Labour to react towards that, and the first point I wish to illustrate comes from Nottingham. The Minister of Labour has to deal primarily with the question of unemployment. In Nottingham there are large numbers of people who are being thrown on to the unemployment list through the closing down of the ordnance factory at Chilwell. So far as I can gather, having tried to raise this matter once or twice in the House, there does not appear to be any coordination of the schemes of the Minister of Labour and of the Secretary of State for War, and so whereas, with regard to the ordnance factory at Chilwell, it could be proved to demonstration that that factory could continue to function and save those men from being unemployed, a new factory is being built near Didcot without any relation to the policy of the Minister of Labour in this matter.
My suggestion is first, that there should be closer co-operation between the great departments of State, having in mind as its chief end the prevention of unemployment, and its amelioration where it exists. The other matter which is of even greater importance is this. In every scheme propounded in this House to-day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the all important element, without which the scheme is almost certain to fail, is the warm co-operation of the local authorities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us in the course of his speech that so important did he regard that matter that he sent a deputation to the country to urge upon local authorities the desirability and necessity of speeding up every single kind of relief work upon which they could lay hands. I recognise the force of the ruling laid down by Mr. Young, but I think that I am entitled to say, if it be a fact that the co-operation of the local authorities is essential to carrying out the schemes which have been propounded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it does seem to me that the chief end of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman ought to be to engender in the local authorities of this country an enthusiastic spirit of co-operation in his work.
At the present time the unfortunate fact has to be faced that while the local authorities have done their very utmost
in this matter they are almost at breaking point. I was particularly pleased to hear the Chancellor of he Exchequer say this afternoon that, so far as the revival of industry was concerned, we should bear in mind that certain places have been more particularly hardly hit in recent years. The Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) will bear me out when I say that Nottingham is one of the places referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore if it be a fact, as it is, that in a city like Nottingham, where the staple industry has been exceedingly hardly hit, the local authority is at breaking point with regard to schemes for relieving unemployment, it is incumbent on the Minister of Labour to see to it that any sense of injustice of any kind which they may feel, whatever may be the source of it, is removed.
The city of Nottingham has spent £1,250,000 upon relief works up to the present. The only assistance which it has received from the Government, on any scheme at all, has been a matter of 23 per cent. of its capital expenditure. There is undoubtedly present in the minds, not merely of one local authority, but of many local authorities, a feeling that they are not supported as they ought to be, and there is a great danger that with the best will in the world many of the admirable schemes put forward will not reach the success which they deserve because of that particular matter. Therefore I urge the Minister of Labour, in dealing with local authorities, to see that nothing is done which will in the least have the effect of lessening that enthusiastic co-operation of the local authorities which is essential to success.

Captain ELLIOT: I would not have risen but for the suggestion from the benches opposite that suggestions of a constructive measure might be of interest to the Minister. I agree with the hon Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) that the great shipbuilding and engineering centres have been hit very badly, and are at present enduring extreme hardship, and for them the question of tariff does not enter in. It is impossible to conceive any duties which could help them to any extent, but we might, by using our intelligence, get out of the hole in which we are at present so far as they are concerned. At present
we find that a great change is taking place with regard to the motive power of shipping. The use of the internal combustion engine is coming in, and causing a revolution in the general architectural features of the work, and we find that development in that direction is being promoted more actively in other countries than in our own. We find that of the new construction at present about 30 per cent. in Great Britain is of the motor type, while the percentage for the world as a whole is 45, and in the case of Germany it is 60 per cent. Our great competitor in shipbuilding, Germany, is at present building motor tonnage to the extent of 60 per cent of all the tonnage under construction.
In the great centres which previously built so much of the fighting tonnage of the Navy we find that the economies produced by the Washington Agreement and others have left the great plants which were assembled for the construction of these gigantic engines of war a mere deadweight in the yards of the Clyde and the other great shipbuilding rivers. I would suggest to the Minister that in engineering, particularly in shipbuilding, we have never had any Government support in the way of research such as has been given in the case of the other great industries of the land. In particular I remember when the Corn Production Act was broken a million pounds was given to research by the Government of the day. Under the Washington Agreement a scheme as definite as any under the Corn Production Act was broken without any suggestion of any gift or support for shipbuilding being given, whereby the shipbuilding industry could turn over its energy from ships of war to ships of peace.
I would suggest, therefore, that in the internal combustion engine we have a line of development which the Government might work on. When we were in power I was personally much interested in a scheme with which we were experimenting under the Scottish Board of Health as to the possibility of using certain forms of relief for the purpose of diminishing unemployment. It is necessary that we should continue to have success in the building of ships in Great Britain. If we cannot stand on our feet in that industry the whole of our industry must
sink, and the work of Great Britain with it. But if we could have a scheme for the building of one, two, three or perhaps four motor ships of the high engine power, which at present are not being produced because there is a danger that they will not be commercially remunerative, if the Minister could inquire as to whether, with the joint support, say, of the Postmaster-General, he might not find it possible to provide mail ships of a speed quite beyond the speed of those which are running now, with a higher mail subsidy, as is necessary for speed, and whether the Postmaster-General might not find it worth his while to assist in the production of such ships, we should have at any rate carried out a work of research which in the long run would be of great service to the naval architecture of this country.
The problems in reference to the cylinders of internal-combustion engines involve as much research as anything that has been done for the benefit of agriculture on research farms. If such a scheme could be carefully inquired into there are possibilities in it of immediate employment in the engineering centres of this country, which might be of great assistance to our naval architecture, and help the shipbuilding centres, which are at present in such a bad state. In view of the fact that our great competitor is out-distancing us, it is important to develop along these lines, which would produce an improvement in the mail transit of the Empire and shorten considerably the time occupied by the carriage of the mails to Australia. It is a striking fact that the transport of the mails to Australia takes one day longer to-day that did 20 years ago.
That subject offers a field of possible investigation, and if anything is to be done it should be put in hand rapidly. It would employ people who are most severely hit now. It would employ workers in a skilled trade and it would give a chance of development, which would go far to sera p the four or five million tons of steel tonnage which are at present lying up, and which should not be brought back into competition again, and it would put this country as far ahead in the building of motor tonnage as we were put by the Dreadnoughts in the matter of steam plant. When the Liberal Government was in
power and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Lloyd George) occupied a prominent place in the Government, the other great revolution in the prime mover of ships began to come in, the development of the turbine engine, and the Government of that day put down a heavy mail subsidy for the two great Cunarders, the "Mauretania" and the "Lusitania."

Mr. WALTER REA: It was earlier than that. It was in the year 1902 and 1903. The credit is due to your Government.

Captain ELLIOT: The important point is that there is a precedent for this. We are perhaps too much inclined in this House to devote attention to precedents, but there is a precedent for the Government of the day putting down a big subsidy to develop naval architecture on a basis of wholesale research, thereby giving a great advantage to the naval architecture of this country. Now internal-combustion engines have proved their value in the case of the smaller horse powers, but they have not yet been investigated with regard to the higher horse power, engines of from 20,000 to 30,000 horse power. This is not merely the vapourings of a politician, but has received the support of so great an authority as Sir John Biles, who was for so many years professor of naval architecture in the University of Glasgow, who himself has advocated such a scheme, and he suggested at any rate a ship with a speed up to 20 knots. That was in October, 1923. Since then I am certain that we could find shipbuilders who would take advantage of this system for ships up to a speed of 22 knots. Ships of that speed would do the mail passage to Australia in 17 days. That would be a great advantage in itself, and the experience gained for our naval architects in the construction of internal-combustion engines up to 30,000 horse power would be of the greatest advantage and produce ships which would be a challenge to the shipbuilders of the world and place Great Britain in undisputed possession of the blue ribbon of sea supremacy.

Mr. H. MORRISON: There was no part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech with which I was in more cordial agreement than that part in which he said that we have to discontinue finding work merely for the sake
of finding work, and that we have to turn our minds towards great and definite and logical schemes of national reconstruction. I remember the record of the Coalition Government in regard to unemployment, and in particular the record of the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara), who thoroughly enjoyed himself at the expense of the Treasury Bench this afternoon. I remember that the Coalition Government had no comprehensive policy on unemployment. They lived from hand to mouth. They took up a scheme here and there, and talked about it. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman himself said that some of the schemes which the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that the present Government would undertake were schemes which he discovered when the Coalition Government was in power. Presumably there were many schemes that the Coalition Government put on the list and did not execute. I agree with the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this living from hand to mouth, politically and economically, in the finding of schemes for the unemployed, is not the way and not the spirit in which the unemployment problem ought to be faced. So far as that aspect of the problem is concerned, the present Government is proceeding admittedly on lines which have some relation to those of previous Governments.
From the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement I think that he will do more work than the others, though the others were very good at producing lists of work. We can pick up a scheme here and there. Local authorities can decide to paint their baths a year before they would otherwise do so; they can make some modification of an elementary school two years before they would otherwise do so; and other things of that kind may happen. The real difficulty which faces this minority Government is that it cannot carry out the policy for which the party stood during and before the Election without having to pass legislation. We cannot carry out the full-blooded policy for which the party stood at the Election. MON. MEMBERS: "What is it?"] If hon. Members are particularly interested in the problem, they can get plenty of descriptive literature from 33, Eccleston Square. They will find that a great many of the schemes require legislation, and
the Government know that those schemes so interfere with the privileges of private property and private industry that the House of Commons, as now constituted, would not pass the legislation. Therefore, before the full-blooded policy of the Labour party can be put into operation there must be another General Election and there must be a majority in the House of Commons. The country understands that perfectly well. Hon. Members need not think that the country does not appreciate the minority position of the Government. The fact is being impressed on the country, and it is one of the facts which is going to achieve very important advantages for the Labour party at the next Election, because the country will say, "If we want these people to do what they say they want to do, we must give them a chance to do it."
Liberals are admittedly against the Labour party on many points of policy, particularly where Labour policy would encroach on what they regard as the rights of private industry. That is all indication of the difficulty with which the Government is faced. I was anxious to follow up some of the observations which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made on the question of electricity supply. I listened to the very dismal and depressing speech of the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. J. C. Gould). The moral of his speech, so far as it was possible to find one, was that unemployment had to be dealt with on the basis of the workman working more hours per day, and, by inference, working for a lower wage. That is the plea of incompetent capitalism. It is the plea of employers of labour who do not see that the problem of British industry is the problem of efficiency.

Mr. HANNON: Can the hon. Gentleman quote a single statement from a responsible employer of labour in this country to bear out his contention?

Mr. H. MORRISON: The speech of the hon. Member for Central Cardiff certainly did bear the interpretation which I have put upon it. His is a quite erroneous view of the problem. It excludes the necessity for greater efficiency in industrial production. It is a plea with which we are very familiar. We have it from employers of labour, from chairmen of companies at the annual meetings of
shareholders, and from others. It comes from those who will not get down to the problem of the better organisation of British industry with a view to securing greater efficiency and better management. In fact the modern employer is not a manager at all; he is a financier who pays other people to do the thinking and the management for him. Surely the wisest thing to do is not to depress the standard of life of the workman. Heaven knows, it has been depressed enough in recent years. Every further stage in the depression of the workman's wages is almost bound to be followed by further unemployment. The whole theory that the depressing of the standard of the workman will improve employment is clearly disproved by the experience of recent years. On the contrary it is sound economics to improve the standard of the workman's life, to improve the purchasing power, so that his demand for goods may increase.
I do not agree with the view that used to be held almost universally that this House has nothing to do with the conduct of industry. I believe that it will have more and more to do with it. We have to turn our minds to the question how far we can decrease cost of production and increase efficiency without injuring the income, the status, the dignity and the comfort of the working people. I regard the question of electricity as a material question in the future of British industry. What is the position of the British electricity supply industry at the present time? The position is far from satisfactory. It is not only a. question of local government areas restricting generating where the municipality owns the _undertaking, but of company areas of a restrictive character, and company managers who have similar problems of local feelings and restrictive outlook to which the Chancellor referred. We have far too many generating stations in many areas, with the consequence that our cost of generating electricity is not what it ought to be. The question of load is really a very simple problem. It is a question of economy in the management of the industry.
Anyone who has studied the electrical load curves must have been impressed with the fact that the greater part of our electrical plant, bought with capital, produced by labour, is unproductive and standing idle during the greater part of
the day. That is the real problem. It is partly caused by the fact that there are so many generating undertakings, so little inter-connection and so many people generating electricity for separate purposes. All this is intimately related to the question of unemployment because wasteful expenditure in industry—the wasteful use of capital and the unproductive use of capital—ultimately has to be paid for either by the consumer or the workman and is in fact a tax on industry and an unnecessary increase in the cost of production. Let anyone examine the load curves—low during the night, rising a little as the people go to work, rising further when the factories begin operations, going flop at dinner time, going up again after dinner time, dropping a little and then rising again to meet the lighting load. Tracing these curves one finds dips during the day and during the night which indicate that the capital required to generate the peak load is standing idle and is being wasted during the periods represented by those dips in the curve. We have railway companies, the London Underground Railway, for instance, generating their own supplies, which is technically wrong. A railway should not generate its own supply but should be mixed up with the other demands of the general, the domestic, and the factory consumer. The London County Council should not be generating a separate supply for the tramways. All should be consolidated under one management for generating purposes in order to secure the maximum use of the capital, and there should be inter-connection to allow of a station being shut down if another station is capable of carrying its load. This is a matter which even those in the industry have been slow to recognise.
The Act of 1919 has been referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). The fundamental principle of the generating side of that legislation, as originally introduced, was that generation should be consolidated under one management in delimited areas under a joint electricity authority and there were compulsory powers which, however, were cut out in another place. Ever since that day the electricity companies, certainly in Greater London, have been steadily obstructing the full operation of that legis-
lation, modest and poor as it was after it had left another place. They have refused to come into the joint authority unless on their own terms, and it is a terrible situation that we have not got that consolidation which we ought to have. I cannot agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the suggestion that the municipalities have been worse in the matter of co-operation than the companies in London; the great bulk of the municipalities have been anxious for the establishment of the joint electricity authority; the obstruction has come from the other side, and I am afraid the Chancellor has been misled by the Electricity Commissioners and by others who are pushing that particular idea.
We have to develop this great industry. There are possibilities of employment in the industry itself apart from its effect upon other industries by the provision of cheap power. Take, for example, the use of electricity for domestic purposes. That has not been developed as much as it should be. There are certain municipalities in London, like my own municipality of Hackney, as well as Poplar, Woolwich and others, where a great deal of employment is being created by extending the use of electricity for domestic purposes. It is being used for cooking although there are still a lot of people, even directors of electricity companies, who do not believe in it for that purpose. It is being used for heating and for similar purposes. In the development of the industry for domestic purposes there is not only the possibility of considerable employment, but, what is equally important, there is a great advantage to the working-class and middle-class housewife in the lightening of labour.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the laying down of transmission lines for distribution, a subject which is closely related to the question of the electrification of the railways. I think it will be a tragedy if, alongside the railways, we go to a very great cost of laying down electricity transmission cables. If the railways were electrified, then from the middle rail or overhead cable they could be tapped to distribute power to the rural areas. They could be the arteries not only for the distribution of human beings, but of electrical energy which could be tapped for the rural areas. I am not clear from
the Chancellor's speech as to whether it is anticipated that the transmission lines will be laid side by side with the railways, or whether it is intended that the energy shall be distributed through the railway system itself so that it could be the source of motive power for the railways, while at the same time, the railways provided the means of distributing electricity to sparsely populated districts. One point on which I am anxious to have information is this. It has been indicated that the Government is going to use public money for the rectification of the differences which exist as regards frequency, and for subsidising the transmission lines in areas where they are not likely to be remunerative. I believe I am expressing a view shared by my colleagues on these benches when I say that we object to the use of public money for this purpose unless it is accompanied by public ownership and control. I lay down that principle very emphatically because I am absolutely tired of the idea running through the State Departments and Tory municipal administration that if there is any money to be made private enterprise is to have it, but if there is any money to be lost then it is to be shoved on to the rates and taxes.

Mr. HANNON: When they have made a failure.

Mr. MORRISON: That is the settled policy of the Conservative party in this, country, and it is a wrong policy. It is contrary to the public interest, and is, in fact, a conspiracy against the public interest. If big houses are to he built, private enterprise does it, but if slums—the product of private enterprise in the past—are to be cleared, the ratepayer has to bear the burden. I am anxious to know from the Government, as we have a right to know, that there will be no expenditure of public money in subsidising private enterprise without public control. That is a very dangerous principle and it gets one into all sorts of tangles. One requires to be sure that private enterprise is competent to manage these transmission lines, and if I may say so to the hon. Member opposite who seems to have such a profound contempt for the efficiency of municipal enterprise—

Mr. HANNON: I never said anything of the kind. What I say is that all our
experience of municipal trading goes to show that municipalities cannot success, fully manage business undertakings.

Mr. MORRISON: That is a classic instance of the manner in which theory dominates the hon. Member. That is a purely theoretical utterance unsupported by facts. Will the hon. Member believe me when I tell him that in 1922–23 the municipalities made a net surplus of £8,000,000 out of municipal trading? These are facts, and coming to the question of electricity, so far as Greater London is concerned, the cost of generating by the municipalities is lower, the labour cost is lower, the cost of management by these glorified officials of the municipalities is lower than in the case of private enterprise. The price to the consumer is lower, and as regards initiative on the domestic supply side, the municipalities beat private enterprise into a cocked hat. These are facts, and I beg of the hon. Member to look into the facts and not to allow himself to be dominated by theories which often arise from prejudice. I think we should know from the Government before the Debate closes how far it is intended that these subsidies in respect of transmission lines and frequencies are going to carry public control.
If it can be shown to be technically sound that long distance transmission lines should be laid down, it might well be wise for the State to lay them down and own them, and to charge a rent for their use to the public and municipal undertakings who take "juice" from those transmission I do resent the idea—and I hope I do not do the Chancellor an injustice, he obviously could not be as detailed as he will have to be later, or somebody will have to be later on—but I did gather some feeling of the idea that where the thing could not be remunerative the taxpayer has to find the money, but where it would be remunerative it would continue to be the possession of private enterprise. Let us not exaggerate too much the long-distance transmission; the case has yet to be proved in this country that it is of necessity sound. Long-distance transmission entails capital costs and lenses of energy in transmission, which are held by many engineers to outweigh the advantages gained by it. I think, in London, there is a strong case for the
capital power station, and also on the North-East Coast, but we must take each area on its merits. We must not be dominated too much by the poetry of the super-power station, unless it can be held to be technically sound in the area in which it is to be operated.
I was delighted to hear from the Chancellor that it is the intention to introduce legislation on the electricity situation probably in the Autumn Session. That is what is urgently necessary, instead of dealing with the scheme in a hotch-potch way by Special Orders and Private Bills in this district and that. We need a comprehensive national policy. Certainly all the undertakings, whether they are company or municipal, must be made to come into the joint electricity authorities as far as generating is concerned. The Commissioners have had a difficult task during recent years, but I cannot accept the view that the municipalities have been more awkward in this matter than the companies. I deny it, and I am sorry that the Chancellor allowed himself to make that statement. There have been occasions, if I may say so with respect, when the Commissioners appeared to favour private enterprise as against municipalities, and the municipalities have resented being subordinated to private companies in this matter. I hope the legislation which the Government have announced they are going to introduce—and I am delighted to hear it—will be on broad lines. I hope it will go some distance further than the "Coal and Power" proposal, which is very vague and a little disquieting in its very favourable references to private enterprise and unfavourable to municipalities. We need the compulsory setting up of a joint body. We need public management in the joint electricity authorities on the generating side of the industry. I believe the distributing side of electricity ought to be in the hands of the local authorities, which best know the needs of their areas. I agree with the Chancellor that the question of electricity is of vital importance. I believe the Government are going ahead; I hope they will consider all the time public interest, and not too much fear the opposition of hon. Gentlemen opposite. On the contrary, we ought to welcome it, because it will show we are right. We must not worry about that too much. I believe that a sound electricity policy
upon a comprehensive basis, definitely in the national interest, will secure public support. I feel sure the Government will come forward on that line, and if they do I am perfectly sure that the electors of the country as a whole will enthusiastically back that policy.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: In dealing with a problem of such a very serious character, as that of unemployment, I regard it as the duty of Members who take part in this Debate to offer criticism of a constructive character. I am not so much concerned with mere party criticism of the present Government as to its past pledges and its present performance. The matter in which we are all concerned is to see that something is done and done immediately, and it is only because I desire to raise one or two points which have not yet been referred to that I venture to detain the Committee for a very few moments.
I should like to bring before the Government the special opportunities which are afforded to them of providing employment on work in connection with the repair and the development of harbours and piers and harbour works around our coast, and particularly I should like to emphasise in this regard the needs of the harbours round the coast of Scotland. During the period of war we have seen a very great deterioration in these works. Very little was done in the way of repairs and in the way of development or extension, and I venture to submit to the Minister that he would find a very fruitful source of employment if he were prepared to speed up schemes which are directed to the development of our harbours and piers. It is quite true that provision has been made through the Development Fund for the making of grants for that purpose, but I should like to point out to him that very few grants, so far, have been made since the War. The Fishery Board for Scotland has practically no funds, or very small funds, and these are not available for the purpose of dealing with this matter. Unless some additional effort be made to provide money for carrying out these schemes and to put pressure upon those who are concerned in carrying through the preliminary procedure, very little may be done. I want to ask the Minister if he would be good enough to
inform the Committee whether those particular aspects of the unemployment question have been carefully considered by the Government and what their proposals are in regard to this matter? There is provision made through the Unemployment Grants Committee for providing loans and grants for purposes of a similar character, but I am informed that very little has been done in the way of application of these funds to the development of harbour works along the coast. I should like to ask the Minister whether he would not be prepared to relax some of the conditions which are attached by the Unemployment Grants Committee to the making of these grants and loans, because it is of urgent importance that no delay should take place in employing the largest number of men possible upon works of this importance.
I should also like to direct his attention to another fruitful source of employment in dealing with the question of the prevention of coast erosion. That is a matter which has been recently gone into at a conference which was held the other day by Members of this House, who drew attention to the urgent need for steps being taken to prevent the encroachment of the sea. The Minister will find very ample source of employment here. I wish he would give some undertaking that the Government will regard such work as a national service, and that it will be regarded as work that should not be placed only upon the shoulders of the municipalities and the local authorities concerned, but that it should receive some special State assistance which should be used for the purpose of giving employment to our unemployed to-day.
I have in my division in Fife several schemes which have been recently put forward in connection with the development and improvement of harbours and also in dealing with the question of coast erosion, which I would press upon the Minister and would urge him that now is the time to get these schemes going. I cannot understand the attitude of the Government, anxious as they declare themselves to be, to get a move on in the direction of affording more employment, that they are not in a position to earmark all these schemes, to see that they are carried through at the earliest possible moment and to see that every pressure is put upon the
Treasury and upon Departments concerned to accelerate their programmes.
I hope we may get an undertaking in the course of this debate that something is being done on these lines. There are many schemes held up awaiting final sanction to-day, and until these schemes have been approved, the work cannot be carried out. I hope no undue restrictions will be placed upon the carrying out of such schemes.
I would also like to emphasise the urgent need for the development of afforestation schemes throughout the country. Speaking for Scotland, there is no doubt very wide scope there for the development of Forestry schemes on lines which will not only give temporary employment to many men at the present moment, but will enable us to settle a resident forestry population upon the soil, and to secure increased progress in land settlement through the provision of small holdings. I think the Government have a large responsibility on their shoulders to-day to see that the Forestry Commission vote presented to this House giving a large increased grant will be used for purposes we regard as essential to-day, and that a special effort will be made to secure a great development of forestry and land settlement within the coming months.

Sir L. LYLE: With other Members on this side of the House, I listened with great interest to the very interesting lecture which we have had from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think for at least three-quarters of an hour that he lectured us, he did not tell us anything about what the Government were going to do for unemployment. He gave us a lecture on a large variety of subjects, but the reason I have risen is to deal with the concrete proposal he made with regard to the question of beet sugar, and, as I have some particular knowledge of the sugar question, I though. I might intervene for five minutes to examine the proposal. It is most interesting to find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is looked upon as the most stalwart apostle of pure Free Trade, has turned into a full-blooded Protectionist. I would like very much to know what has converted him. At any rate he has the fiery enthusiasm of a convert, and no doubt, in future days, we may see him leading the
Labour party in its crusade for Protection, for I have no doubt there will be such a crusade, and I have no doubt ultimately that policy will be carried by the Labour party. But, first of all, if you are going to think out a scheme for the benefit of an industry, and to create employment, the first essential of such a scheme is that you must be perfectly convinced that anything you propose is not going to damage another industry already in existence in this country, and I am afraid the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not fully considered the effect of his proposal. Another point is that when you are introducing a scheme of this nature, you must be very careful, if you are going to give a bounty and a present to one industry, to be fair and just, and not do any damage to anyone else.
Neither of these two essentials has been maintained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I did not follow the right hon. Gentleman exactly in what he proposed, but I think I know what is in his mind. At the present moment, I think, everybody in this House, regardless of party, wishes to help agriculture and employment in the agricultural industry. But the Committee does not fully understand the position with regard to sugar. When sugar is extracted from beetroot, it goes through various processes, which form it into a brown, impure article, which has to go through a further process of refining. At the moment in this country, we do not manufacture the raw article, namely, raw sugar, and, therefore, those in this House who believe in Protection, or believe in subsidies, might quite fairly say they will subsidise this industry if they are in favour of the subsidy, but I must point out to the Committee that already this industry was in receipt of an enormous subsidy, because the whole of the Excise Duty, namely 11s. 8d., was remitted. Previous to the reduction of the Sugar Duty, the sugar beet people in this country had the whole of the Excise Duty remitted, which was over 24s. per cwt. In spite of the enormous advantage of having 11s. 8d. per cwt. of Protection, they find that they cannot carry on. When the Sugar Duty is reduced from 24s. to 11s. 8d., they say that they must be subsidised.
I understood the Labour party were against all subsidies. I understood that the Prime Minister from the Treasury
Box stated he was against any protection, or against any subsidy, but here is already an enormous subsidy taking place; 11s. 8d. is remitted, and on the top of that comes along the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and although it was not very clear, and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was not able to understand it, they are going to get another present of 9s. per cwt., which means they are going to get 20s. a cwt. over the foreigner, and, as I shall prove, over an already established industry in this country. An hon. Member opposite shakes his head, but I am talking about facts. The present Excise duty of 11s. 8d. is remitted. The Chancellor's proposal, as I understand it—and I think it will be found that I am right—is to give another 9s. on top of that. Perhaps the Financial Secretary knows, and will say if it is not true. When I say the finished article only costs about 24s. a cwt., the Committee will get some idea of the enormity of this subsidy of 20s. I would not object to that if it were part of a clearly laid down policy in order to help an industry, which we have not got in this country already, to establish itself. But there is in this country an already established industry of British sugar refining, that is, the industry which takes raw sugar. The refiners are situated at the ports, and can draw their sugar either from beetroot or sugar-cane fields throughout the world, and make that sugar into the refined article at a big expense of plant, and by the employment of a great number of people, directly and indirectly.
What is the position—and this is what Members in this House do not appreciate—and I should like them to? By all means help an industry, if possible. Leaving out of question altogether the Chancellor of Exchequer—nobody heard of anyone even the greatest Protectionist in the world—who suggested protecting a new industry as against an already established industry! What we want to do in the way of protection is to give protection to an industry in this country as against the foreigner. In this country the beet sugar growing people established at Kelham have been turning the whole of their raw sugar into refined sugar. They have been getting the benefit over the British refiners already for years, while the Sugar Duty has been at 24s., getting
a benefit over an already established industry capable of taking 1,400,000 tons per annum. How can it be possible for the British sugar refiner to sell his article when he has in close competition with him one who has the advantage in the remission of the duty from 24s. to 11s. 8d.? That is not sufficient! They come along and ask for a further subsidy, and this embodiment of Free Trade in the person of the Chancellor of Exchequer, gives them a further subsidy of 9s. per cwt.
The House, perhaps, will realise that there is a way out of this and it is the only fair and just way. We want to give a benefit to agriculture. We want to have supplies of the raw material available. We are only too delighted to see agriculture flourishing. It is not to be thought that the British refining interest think otherwise. We desire to see that we are supplied with raw sugar, and I say, and say it in full confidence, that I am only asking for what is common justice, that if you are going to give a subsidy that should only be given to the point of raw sugar. If these people at Kelham, Cantley, and various other parts want to get protection, let them only produce sugar up to the raw stage. Do not let them, ask for the protection of 11s. 8d. over and above what the British refiner has to-day. We do not object to an industry being started in this country. We do not object to fighting on fair and square lines. But we do object, and come to the House of Commons to say so, and shall come later and put our case to the House. We do ask why should such a monstrous injustice as this be tolerated, that a newly-established industry in this country shall be allowed to carry the process right through to the refining industry, and get protection such as one has never heard of before? All the benefit to agriculture can be secured. All the employment could be secured if they stop at the raw material By carrying through to the refining stage, not one further man will be employed in this country, because every man possible is employed in the refining part of the beet sugar business. Therefore, so far as creating employment is concerned, it will do little or nothing.
9.0 P.M.
I do not want to detain the House much longer, because it is only by
courtesy I have been able to say what I have, but I think it is quite clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that he had very carefully looked into this matter, and that it was not without great consideration that he had come to the conclusion that this should be done, is still not clear upon some points. I asked him to say whether this extra bounty was to be given to refined or to raw sugar, and he did not know, and did not seem to understand the position—so little does he appear to know it. I think it really absurd that the Chancellor of the-Exchequer should come, down here and make a statement of this sort, when he really has not studied the question as to whether it is raw or refined sugar with which he is dealing. I want it to be made perfectly clear that we of the refining industry say that if it be the policy of this Government to subsidise an industry, they should do it in such a way that it does not help to smash old established industries.

Mr. CAPE: In this and other Debates that have taken place in relation to the unemployment question since the present Government has been in office, Members have repeatedly challenged the Government, and said that we have not fulfilled the promises that were given to the electors in 1923. I have been a Member here since 1918. I remember when the Coalition Government came in in 1918 They made some definite and distinct promises as to unemployment. Have they carried their promises out? They had four years in which to carry out promises made, and I think they failed in every attempt to solve the unemployed question. Then we had another Government in 1922. They made promises if they were put into power—that is, the Conservative Government—that they would solve the unemployment problem. They suggested, amongst other thing, tranquillity. They had 12 months' experience, and I think at the end of that unemployment reached a higher figure in this country than ever before.
The Labour party came into power They had to face difficulties that had not been created by the Labour party, but by the other two Governments. Now it is expected after six months in office that they should have been able to clear up the mess made by other people and to
solve the great problem of unemployment! I think every Member in this House realises that this is one of the vital questions upon which every Member must concentrate, and instead, therefore, of so much adverse criticism, I think it would be better that the criticism were of a constructive character. The hon. Member for Penrith and Cocker-mouth Division (Mr. Dixey) stated that the Government ought to take its courage in both hands. I do not know what is meant by that. I think the courage he talks about is Protection. He does not know about anything else. I want, however, to suggest to the Government that they might turn their eyes to that part of the country which the hon. Gentleman of whom I have been speaking represents, which is also the county in which is the Division I represent. I think if they do so they will find large tracts of land very suitable for afforestation. As a matter of fact, the Forestry Commissioners have already taken over certain plans in regard to the county, and have been doing some work there. I should like to recommend the Ministry of Labour and the Forestry Commissioners to direct their attention to that part where they could put in hand one scheme that would help to solve the unemployment problem. Let them give some attention to Cumberland, where a very large amount of afforestation might take place. One hon. Member mentioned some of the attempts made by the Government, and he was jeered at when he mentioned the Housing Bill. I would like to point out that when that Bill becomes an Act, and when the local authorities begin to give effect to it, that will create a large amount of employment. We want men to manufacture the materials for house building as well as more bricklayers and plasterers. The provision of houses might also give employment to the steel workers who have been as hardly hit as anybody by unemployment.
It has been suggested that steel might be largely used for housebuilding, and I may say that that same suggestion has been made to me by thoroughly practical men who have had a long experience in engineering and in the steel trade. I would further suggest that whoever is responsible for the Gretna business might give a little more attention to it. I know any effort made in that direction would
be opposed by private enterprise, if they try to put into operation any national scheme, but notwithstanding that fact I think the Gretna scheme is worthy of the utmost consideration by the Government and of every hon. Member in this House. May I also suggest to the Ministers of the different Departments concerned that municipalities and local authorities might be encouraged to get on with the schemes which have been sanctioned by the Local Legislation Committee, and this would help the unemployed in their own immediate neighbourhood.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, "That Item A (i)—[Salaries, Wages, and Allowances; Headquarters—Permanent Departments]—be reduced by £100."
I want to bring the Committee back to a rather more definite consideration of the question on which we have to vote and that is, what has the Minister of Labour done to find employment for the unemployed? After all, that is his business, and it is his salary and conduct in his office that is in question to-night. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made an extremely interesting speech, and in certain parts of it he laid down some very excellent economics, but what we have to make up our minds about is whether the Minister of Labour has properly carried out his function of providing work for the unemployed. The right hon. Gentleman quoted figures and the number of the unemployed this year in July as being, roughly, 1,000,000, as against 1,200,000 at this time last year. The difference is just under 200,000, and that is the amount of the reduction in the course of the year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not remind the Committee, as I think he should have done, that during that same period 200,534 men have left permanent homes in this country to go overseas. Therefore, the actual effect is that not a single additional person has been found employment.
The importance of this question is not a comparison between this year and last year's emigration, but in order to ascertain what has happened to the 1,200,00 men out of work last year. It appears that 1,000,000 of them are still out of work, and more than 200,000 of them have gone overseas to try to find work elsewhere. I do not think the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer succeeded in proving that the administration of his colleague has been successful in finding any work at all for the unemployed. If one looks at the White Paper, which has been circulated to Members of the House for the purpose of this Debate—it was only put into the Vote Office within the last two or three days—we can test the actual administration by the Minister of Labour of the schemes already in operation. That is the only test, because the right hon. Gentleman has not brought into operation a single new idea in the whole course of his period of office. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talks about new schemes, but what we want to make up our minds about is what the Minister of Labour has done, with the material at his hand, and with the schemes we have here, in this Paper, to carry out the schemes already in existence.
Let me make a very short review of these various schemes which are referred to in the White Paper. They are not quite the same figures which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave, and it is extraordinary that the Chancellor should have had to admit that he did not even know that the Minister of Labour had issued to the House a White Paper on this subject. If we compare the estimated wages cost of the schemes in Table 1 it will be seen that last year, the year before the Labour party came into office, we spent something over £2,000,000, and this year the amount is something under £500,000. Why has there not been greater diligence in promoting the schemes which are shown in Table 1? The Minister of Labour ought to answer that question and show where his schemes are, and why he has fallen short of doing even as much as we did last year. He ought not to be content to say, "There is the White Paper, and that shows what we have done," but he should explain to the House why he has failed to get within 25 per cent, of what we did last year.
The same thing applies to the matters dealt with in Table 2. During last year, the year of the Conservative Government, the amount spent was £16,500,000, but this year the White Paper shows the amount is only £3,669,000, and that is an enormous difference. There must be some explanation of this difference. When we were in office we did diligently, week by week, review schemes, and we did all we
could to put them into operation. What has the Minister of Labour done? How is it that he has failed, not in giving us new ideas, because we can hardly expect that after his previous speeches, but in showing what has he done to carry out the schemes which we have brought before him? With regard to Table 4, so far as I can gather, no new schemes have been put into operation at all by the present Government. They have taken advantage of those which we prepared, and which, had we continued in office, would have been brought in, and the right hon. Gentleman could have found every single one of those schemes in the pigeon holes of his own office, and I do not think that he has added a single one to them. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what new schemes he has added?
With regard to roads and bridges, the information given us by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that contained in the White Paper, is entirely insufficient to enable us to see what this £13,500,000 actually includes. Let me ask the Labour Minister this question. Does it include the Tay Bridge scheme? Does it include the Queensferry Bridge? Does it include the Menai Bridge? I want to know whether the £13,500,000 which is put down for road and bridge schemes on page 8 of the White Paper includes these bridges which I have mentioned, or whether they are new schemes? If they are new schemes, what has happened to the schemes which will be found in the right hon. Gentleman's own office for the Tay, Queensferry, and Menai Bridges? I rather fancy that it does include the River Tay Bridge, from something which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, but, if so, what little progress has been made!
What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say he was going to do in the case of the River Tay Bridge? He said he had undertaken to pay the preliminary expenses of the engineers' investigation. That is all. That investigation has not yet taken place, and, when it does take place, he says he is going to negotiate with the municipal authorities. Will the Minister of Labour tell us whether a single man will be employed on that scheme this next winter? Is it possible to employ a single man on that scheme during this next winter? We know it is impossible if he has made so little
progress in the last five months that he is now contemplating paying the preliminary expenses of the engineers' reports, which he might easily have done five months ago. The scheme, in the shape in which it left us, was awaiting the engineers' report, and, had we continued in office, the ordinary process of the preliminary examination would have been followed by the engineers' report. It seems to me that the Minister has waited five months before he has taken that next step.
With regard to the Trade Facilities Guarantee schemes, I could not understand what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. The White Paper, so far as I can see, absolutely contradicts what I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. I believe he said that it had been extended by some £10,000,000. If that be so, this White Paper, which was issued only three days ago, is totally misleading, because, according to the White Paper, there is actually in hand now under the Trade Facilities Guarantee schemes, £2,000,000 less work than when the Government took office. The figures are here—



As at 4th February,
As at 2nd June,



1924
1924.


" Amount in use or ear-marked
£
£


8,183,550
6,299,000 "


Apparently, therefore, there is £2,000,000 less work in actual operation to-day under these schemes than there was when the Government took office.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to interrupt him for one moment, he is, surely, under a complete misapprehension, The reference which he is making is to Export Credit schemes, under which the guarantees may run out. If he will turn to the Trade Facilities scheme, he will find that there is an increase of £10,000,000.

Sir L. W0RTHINGT0N-EVANS: I am very glad to have that explanation. I will deal with the Trade Facilities scheme, but Jet me ask the Minister, why, then, has the Export Credits scheme been reduced, because, after all, this is the scheme under which men may get work in their own trade? Does he mean that he cannot find people to take up the credits? Is that the reason? If so, then let it be
recognised that these schemes ought to be reconsidered and looked at again. There may be some reason why people cannot avail themselves of the credits At any rate, it is true to say that there is £2,000,000 less of credits outstanding to-day than there was when the Labour Government took office. Now with regard to the Trade Facilities scheme. The hon. Gentleman says that there is £10,000,000 extra. Let me ask him this: Did he not succeed to £5,500,000 of acceptable business which was in hand in February, 1924, but which was held up and could not be completed by the late Government because the Trade Facilities Act was then running out? The hon. Gentleman succeeded to £5,500,000 of business which was then in hand, and yet he comes down here and claims that he has provided £10,000,000 of extra business. What he has really done has been to provide £4,500,000 of extra business, and to carry out £5,500,000 of business that was already in hand when he took office. That is a pretty fair test of the value of these figures, and how misleading they are If they are not properly explained.
Now let me deal for a few moments with the new schemes which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put before us to-day, and let me first welcome him as a convert to the importance of the sugar-beet industry. There is, I believe, more joy over one sinner that repenteth than there is over a whole House of Commons, or, at any rate, over the whole of us on this side, who urged upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer all through the Budget Debates exactly the same arguments which he himself has produced to-day. I am extremely glad that our work in the Budget Debates was not wasted, and that it has really enabled the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see the light and bring in the proposal which he has made. I confess I am in much the same difficulty as other Members who have listened to the Chancellor on the subject of sugar. I am not at all sure now what the total of the subsidy is. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) thought it was 10s. per cwt. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Sir L. Lyle), who was speaking just now, said he thought the bounty amounted to 19s. 9d. per cwt. I shall be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman, in reply, will tell us what it does amount to. I am inclined to think now that it is
19s. 9d. The sum works out at 19s. 9d. for three years, and then is to be reduced until it expires at the end of 10 years. I welcome the proposal to support the sugar industry. I think we shall have to consider the exact terms of the sliding scale and the exact terms on which the subsidy is given, but, as I have said, I am delighted that the Chancellor has learned some wisdom from our Budget Debates.
Now may I say a word or two about the question of electricity? The Chancellor of the Exchequer produced this scheme as if it were a great, novel idea which had struck the Labour party and no one else, and he seemed to expect that we should all bow down to it because of that. As a matter of fact, what he has done is nothing more, so far as the first part is concerned, than extend the Unemployment Grants Committee subsidies to electricity beyond the public utility works and municipal works to which alone they formerly applied. He has accepted the same principle which we set up in connection with the Unemployment Grants Committee. There we gave a part of the interest on capital which was employed in public utility works and which was not likely to be productive over a period. That is precisely the same form of grant as that which is now intended, as I understand it, to be made in order to induce the municipalities and the power companies to convert their machinery to a standardised system. But what employment is that going to give this winter? What is the procedure? The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained it. He said he was going to appoint an expert, who was to hold conferences with the municipalities and with the power companies, and that at some time, if they arranged satisfactory terms, work would be put in hand. I am delighted that that should be done, but does it mean a single man being employed during this coming winter? We know what these conferences are. However much people try to hurry up conferences with municipal authorities and with big companies, they must take a very long time, and I do not believe myself—

Mr. SHAW: We can do it in six weeks.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman seems to forget that he has been in power, not for six weeks,
but for nearly six months. There is a second and third part of the electricity scheme on which I think we should have further information. What does the Chancellor mean when he says he intends to build transmission lines? He seemed to me to be a little sketchy there. Is it intended that the State shall build and own transmission lines? He said that the State is to pay the greater part of the costs of the transmission lines, but does he mean that is to be a State enterprise carried out directly by the State, or is it to be carried out by the power companies or perhaps the municipalities subsidised in the same way as the previous subsidy? I hope he will be able to answer this important question, which is one on which the Committee ought to have further knowledge.
There was even a more difficult question. The Chancellor said that when you got your transmission lines you also have to have your house wired. I think that these were his words, that it was the intention of the Government to form local associations who would undertake the wiring of private houses. Is that a system to set up a Government plumber or what is it? Is it that the Government are going in for local associations with Government capital in those associations, or is it again some form of assistance by the Government, either to the individual who wants to have his house wired, or to some municipal authority or some other body who will carry it out? I think the Minister ought to inform us more on that.
There is only one other of these schemes I wish to mention, and that is the Severn barrage. That is a highly interesting and highly speculative proposition. I remember going into it. If it succeeds, well and good, we will be delighted, but we cannot bank on it at the moment, and the Government are right in saying it will take three years before the tides have been watched and before the calculations have been made. I think the Government are right in paying these preliminary expenses of having that investigation carried out. Do not let anyone think that that means a single piece of work to a single man this winter. At the utmost it may be 10 or 12 people employed in making an investigation.
Throughout the Chancellor's speech one could not help feeling that, however wise it may be to undertake the subsidy of
big and. useful works, however wise that may be for the future, it does not promise a single day's extra work for this winter, and it is only by the Minister carrying out schemes which we have presented him with that work can possibly be found for this winter. I notice with some interest that the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour made a speech at Preston the other day. She was with the Minister of Labour at the time—I believe at the same meeting—and no doubt they carefully checked over what they were going to say. She promised an expectant world something good for to-day. She said:
Do not think about the Minister's empty hat. Do not bother about that. Up his sleeve he has got some things for the House which will please the House and the country.
Now is his opportunity. Let him justify his position, otherwise he will again disappoint the House and the country. Meanwhile I am not satisfied with what has taken place to-day, and so I am going to move, to show that displeasure in the usual way, the reduction of his salary.

Mr. SHAW: We have listened to an extremely interesting Debate, as to 98 per cent, of it in fairly good temper and fair accurateness of fact; as to the last 2 per cent., I think a bit rocky on both accounts. We began by a speech from the right hon. Member for North-West Camber well (Dr. Macnamara), who asked certain questions to which he demanded answers. One or two of the questions would not have been asked had my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the time to speak about one or two things that are in process of being carried out, or being arranged, which have or will have a material effect on the question of unemployment. My right hon. Friend said not a word about housing. Is it claimed that the housing problem will do nothing to find employment? [HON. MEMBERS: "Nothing!"] Our claim is, on the contrary, that this scheme will not only find employment, but provide type of employment that is most necessary under the circumstances. We hope that it will provide houses. Certain we are that no scheme equal in character has been put before the House. Not only will it provide houses, but it will provide work at their own trade for thousands of skilled workmen who will be occupied not only in building houses themselves but in
making all the furnishings for them. Then my right hon. Friend omitted, strange to say, the subject of afforestation which has been allowed to go down the hill instead of being developed. We have arranged with the Forestry Commission during the present year to acquire another 50,000 acres of land, and to combine afforestation with a system of small holdings. That will not only increase employment but add to the wealth of the nation in a manner that will be of great use to our country. We were asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell what we were doing at once? If he says, "These are our schemes," I reply that in 1918 the Labour party interviewed Ministers and suggested the major part of these schemes. The records are there. We told you in 1918 that the boom was temporary. We asked you to prepare a scheme. We suggested what you should do, and then when it was too late, when you were in the slump, because you had not carried out what we suggested, we did it and you cry, "It is our work." Let me say a word about the figures. It is true that there are 200,000 less people unemployed now than there were at this time last year.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Have not 215,000 emigrants left these shores in the same time?

Mr. SHAW: Since this decrease of unemployment took place, my figures show that something like 29,000 people have left this country. How many of them have come back?

Sir H. CROFT: What about the figures given by the President of the Board of Trade?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Will the right hon. Gentleman quote his authority which overrules the statement of the President of the Board of Trade?

Mr. SHAW: The figures given to me as to the number of people who have emigrated since this decline took place show that 29,000 people have done so. Has the Board of Trade ever declared that during three months there have been 250,000 emigrants?

Sir L. W0RTHINGTON-EVANS: My hon. and gallant Friend (Sir H. Croft) got these figures in an answer to-day from
the President of the Board of Trade, that in the year we are speaking of there has been an emigration of 250,000. That answer was given us to-day.

Mr. SHAW: But this decrease has taken place since the beginning of this year.[An HON. MEMBER: "You are talking about a year's unemployment!"] I am not responsible for the nine months of the late Government's administration. Bearing in mind the weird way of using figures adopted on the benches opposite, I think I am justified in my attitude. For instance, we were told by a prominent member of the late Government that the Government intended to spend £50,000,000 during the winter, and if that were not enough they would spend £100,000,000. But they had no intention of spending £50,000,000, and they did not spend more than £5,000,000. Yet a responsible Cabinet Minister stated definitely in the country that the Government were prepared to spend £50,000,000 during the winter, and if that were not enough they would spend £100,000,000. When hon. and right hon. Gentlemen use figures treacherously in that fashion and without any sense either of responsibility or of thought for the unemployed—

Captain Viscount CURZ0N: You have no right to say that!

Mr. SHAW: When I receive the treatment I am prepared to mete out to others, I shall not be likely to make statements so strong. But I have received treatment which I very much resent. I have tried to treat the opposite side in a gentlemanly way. I expected the same treatment from them, but I repeat that the statement to which I have referred was deliberately made by a prominent Minister of the late Government and that there was not a word of foundation for it, although the people were led to believe that these things would be done. I am quoting facts. There can be no question that as a matter of fact the unemployment figures are really better than they appear to be, and I will tell the Committee why. When I became Minister of Labour I was approached by one of the chief officials of the Ministry who told me that, in his opinion, the figures as given did not correctly represent the total number of unemployed, and that some 40,000 people partially employed registered at the Exchanges ought to be
added on to that figure. I said to him "In your opinion is that a more correct way of representing the position of affairs?" He replied, "Yes." At once I said "If that gives a more correct picture, put on the 40,000." They were accordingly added. If these figures had been compiled on the old basis they would be more favourable than they appear to be. I did not suggest, as I might have done, that the alteration would make our work look bad. I only asked if it would give a more correct picture of the condition of affairs, and being assured that it would I had the alteration made.
We are asked how many people we shall employ next winter. Everybody knows the winter schemes are not finished, cut and dried, in the middle of summer. In spite of our efforts with the municipalities, we shall have to wait for some time yet before we can know exactly how many people can be employed on these schemes during the coming winter. Certain questions were asked by the right hon. Gentleman as to the road schemes. The separate scheme, to which we propose to devote £13,500,000, are entirely new schemes, and have no connection whatever with any scheme that was dealt with by the late Government. There was one road in Lancashire mentioned by the ex-Minister of Labour that appears in the scheme, but no arrangement had been made for it, and all that has been done in connection with it is the work of this Government; therefore, we claim it as part of our scheme. I may, for the information of the right hon. Member for Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara), say there is a difficulty as to the reconstruction at the national expense of certain sections of the arterial roads in this country, and for that £5,000,000 it may be necessary to seek Parliamentary powers. These we shall seek if it becomes necessary. Of the £13,500,000 the Liverpool and Lancaster road will absorb £3,000,000; the new Chertsey road, £1,500,000; the various road schemes (numbering a good many), £3,000,000; bridges, £1,000,000; and the remaining £5,000,000 will be for reconditioning and remaking national arterial roads at the cost of the nation.

Mr. MASTERMAN: Will that be from the Road Board Fund?

Mr. SHAW: Yes, it must be from the Road Board Fund. [Interruption.] I
really cannot understand that that is the case. It is ordinary work when we do it, but it is your scheme when you do it. It was we who in 1918 approached your Government and asked you to do it. The right hon. Gentleman asked also that we should publish a monthly progress report. I am very glad the House of Commons is now so very anxious for a report. Why did not the two Governments previous to ours do it themselves? Why should we do it? There is less unemployment now. There are better hopes now. But I will take the subject and consider it, and if I think it will be to the advantage of the House, and that it is a practicable proposition, I am prepared to do it, as I always have been. When the right hon. Gentleman accused me of publishing a Paper before the Debase he forgot that I published it at the request of one of his own colleagues. The House would have been led to believe from his remarks that the Paper had been published for the purposes of the Debate by us. What took place was this. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Master-man) wanted to know how much of that famous £50,000,000 had been spent last winter. I wont into the subject and discovered to my astonishment that I could not trace that more than a quarter of a million of it had really been spent. The statement was made in the House, the White Paper was asked for, and I gave it, so I ask the Committee to exonerate me from the charge of having published a White Paper for debating purposes.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I am very grateful to him for publishing this. I think it was wanted for the information of the House. It was, of course, for the information of Members for the purpose of this Debate.

Mr. SHAW: All I have to say is that I am not the only one who understood that the right hon. Gentleman had suggested that this had been done from our point of view because it was a favourable thing for the Debate Then we had a speech from one of the Members for Cardiff, and his suggestion to avoid unemployment was that we should tell the working men that they should work much longer hours. I can deal with that when I am introducing the Washington Convention (Hours of Employment) Bill. It seems an extraordinary thing to me to argue, as is frequently done, that the
Germans in the Ruhr must work more than 48 hours in order to pay reparations and we must work more than 48 hours to compete with them. The Germans must work more than 48 hours because they were defeated and we must work more than 48 hours because we won. I wonder if hon. Members think the working man is quite such an ass as that. If they do, as they got one disillusionment last year, they will get another. Then we had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). The beginning of his speech was a delicate filigree work as iridescent as foam on champagne. He suggested that his book of three weeks ago had suddenly stimulated the Cabinet, and that their decision had been taken since. This question of electricity has been a very long business. It has necessitated a lot of inquiry. It has been a moot point as to whether it was or was not advisable to ask for the restoration of the powers contained in the 1919 Bill. It had to be dealt with at rather too great a length from my point of view, but it was necessary that we should do it. We are not going to make statements about £50,000,000 or £100,000,000. We prefer to spend the money rather than talk about it in the country without any idea of spending it. It is our intention to unify the system so far as frequency is concerned throughout these islands. It is our intention to lay cables where cables are necessary. It is our intention to attempt, at any rate, to give electric light and power to the villages and small towns, and we shall not hesitate to come before Parliament for any powers that may be necessary. The right hon. Gentleman says the Liberal joke has become the serious policy of the Labour party.

Lieut. - Commander KENW0RTHY: Will these cables be Government owned?

Mr. SHAW: That depends on the circumstances. If we find it better to work through the big municipalities and companies, we shall do it. If we find it better to own them as a State, we shall own them as a State, or that is the proposition we shall put before the House.
May I say a word about necessitous areas? This is one of the most difficult problems we have to face. We find that the districts which have most unemployment are at the end of their resources and, try as they will, in many
cases there is apparently no chance of them carrying out any future scheme. There is no question whatever that the municipalities are in many cases, I cannot say unwilling, but unable to carry out the work that is necessary for the relief of unemployment on these temporary schemes. We have not a closed mind, and we are prepared to negotiate with the municipalities and, where the occasion calls for it, to help them in a special way. Then we have the positive remedy gibe over and over again.
The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Captain Brass) asked what we were prepared to do with regard to Empire migration. He said that we had a surplus of 770,000 males. I do not believe that in an efficient nation, efficiently equipped, there is a surplus of one male. Our danger does not arise from nations that work long hours nor from workers that work for low wages. Our danger arises from those who work short hours for high wages. We were told that we were going to throw 2,000,000 men out of work in the motor trade, but there are more men working in the motor trade to-day than in January last.

Viscount CURZON: That is not true.

Mr. SHAW: I say that it is absolutely true.

Sir EDWARD ILIFFE: It is absolutely untrue.

Mr. SHAW: I repeat that there are more persons working in the motor trade to-day than there were in January of this year. The Noble Lord has the temerity to say that my remarks are untrue. He ought to know something about the truth. Here are the figures. On

the 26th November, 1923, there were 21,057 unemployed motor workers in this country: in December of that year there were 19,433, and in June of this year 13,640. Therefore, I hope the Noble Lord will withdraw his remarks. [Hon. Members: "They have emigrated!"] I have given the facts. [Interruption.] I have stated definitely that there are more people employed in the motor trade to-day than in January of this year. [Interruption.] I have only two minutes left, and I wish to spend that time in an appeal to the House. My appeal is this: To whatever party we belong, and whatever may have been the crime which each party has committed, one thing is certain, and it is that any scheme or any policy embarked upon, any action taken ought to be to make this country more efficient than it is at the present time. That is the policy that we are aiming at. Whether we are a manufacturing nation or an agricultural nation, whether we are an individualist nation, or a Socialist nation, unless we are efficient in production, we shall go down in the scale. It is our desire to do everything we possibly can to help the nation to become efficient, and so to provide the real remedy for unemployment.

It being Ten of the Clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.

Question put, "That Item A (i) [Salaries, Wages, and Allowances; Headquarters—Permanent Departments] be reduced by £100."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 204; Noes, 254.

Division No. 185.]
AYES.
[10.0 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Bt. Hon. Sir James T.
Brass, Captain W.
Clarry, Reginald George


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Briscoe, Captain Richard George
Clayton, G. C.


Alexander, Brg.-Gen. sir W. (Glas. C.)
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Bullock, Captain M.
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Austin, Sir Herbert
Burman, J. B.
Cope, Major William


Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Butt, Sir Alfred
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Caine, Gordon Hall
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Beckett, Sir Gervase
Cassels, J. D.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Berry, Sir George
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S)
Davidson, Major General Sir J. H.


Birchall, Major J. Dear-man
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn(Aston)
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset. Yeovil)


Blundell, F. N.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Davies, Sir Thomas (Clrencester)


Bourne, Robert Croft
Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Bowater, Sir T. Vanslttart
Chilcott, sir Warden
Dawson, Sir Philip


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Deans, Richard Storry


Dixey, A. C.
Kay, Sir R. Newbald
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Kedward, R. M.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Duckworth, John
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Robinson, W. E. (Burslem)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Roundel), Colonel R. F.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Ednam, Viscount
Lorlmer, H.D.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Elliot, Walter E.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Savery, S. S.


Elveden, Viscount
Lumley, L. R.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


England, Colonel A.
Lyle, Sir Leonard
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Lynn, Sir R.J.
Simms, Dr. John M.(Co. Down)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
MacDonald, R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Ferguson, H.
McLean, Major A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


FitzRoy, Captain Rt. Hon. Edward A.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-ln-Furness)


Forestler-Walker, L.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francls E.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Stanley, Lord


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Meller, R. J.
Steel, Samuel Strang


Gates, Percy
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Greene, W.P. Crawford
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sutcliffe, T.


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A. C. (Honiton)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Gretton, Colonel John
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D L. (Exeter)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nield, Rt Hon. Sir Herbert
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Harland, A.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Waddington, R.


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-Hull)


Hartington, Marquess of
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Warrender, sir Victor


Harvey, C. M. B (Aberd"n & Kincardne)
Pease, William Edwin
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Pennefather, Sir John
Wells, S. R.


Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)
Penny, Frederick George
Weston, John Wakefield


Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Perring, William George
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Pleiou, D. P.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hood, Sir Joseph
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Wolmer, Viscount


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.


Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Hume-Williams. Sir W. Ellis
Remer, J. R.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Remnant, Sir James



Huntingfield, Lord
Rentoul, G. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Commander B. Eyres-Monsell and


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Major Sir Harry Barnston.


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William




NOES.


Ackroyd, T. R.
Climie, R.
Gillett, George M.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Cluse, W. S.
Gorman, William


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gosling, Harry


Alden, Percy
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Compton, Joseph
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, s.)
Comyns-Carr, A. S.
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)


Ammon, Charles George
Costello, L. W. J.
Greenall, T,


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cove, W. G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Baker, Walter
Crittall, V. G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Banton, G.
Darblshire, C. W.
Groves, T.


Barclay, R. Noton
Davies, David (Montgomery)
Grundy, T. W.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)


Barnes, A.
Davies, Evan(Ebbw Vale)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)


Batey, Joseph
Davison, J. E.(Smethwick)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood(Leith)
Dickie, Captain J. P.
Harbord, Arthur


Birkett, W. N.
Dickson, T.
Hardie, George D.


Black, J. W.
Dodds, S. R.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Bondfield, Margaret
Dukes, C.
Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)


Bonwick, A.
Duncan, C.
Hastings, Sir Patrick


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Dunn, J. Freeman
Hastings, Somerville (Reading)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Dunnico, H.
Haycock, A. W.


Briant, Frank
Edwards, C. (Monmouth. Bedwellty)
Hayday, Arthur


Broad, F. A.
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)
Hayes, John Henry


Bromfield, William
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Hemmerde, E. G.


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Egan, W. H.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Emlyn-Jones, J. E.(Dorset, N.)
Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)


Brunner, Sir J.
Falconer, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Buchanan, G.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Henderson, W. W.(Middlesex, Enfield)


Buckle, J.
Foot, Isaac
Hindle, F.


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Franklin, L. B.
Hirst, G. H.


Cape, Thomas
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Hobhouse, A. L.


Chapple, Dr. William A.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)


Charleton, H. C.
Gavan-Duffy, Thomas
Hodges, Frank


Church, Major A. G.
Glbbins, Joseph
Hoffman, P. C.


Clarke, A.
Gilbert, James Daniel
Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)




Hudson, J. H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Isaacs, G. A.
Mosley, Oswald
Stamford, T. W.


Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)
Moulton, Major Fletcher
Starmer, Sir Charles


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Muir, John W.
Stephen, Campbell


Jewson, Dorothea
Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Murray, Robert
Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Murrell, Frank
Sullivan, J.


Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)
Naylor, T. E.
Sunlight, J.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Nichol, Robert
Sutton, J. E.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
O'Grady, Captain James
Tattersall, J. L.


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Oliver, George Harold
Terrington, Lady


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford,E.)
Paling, W.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Palmer, E. T.
Thurtle, E.


Keens, T.
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Tillett, Benjamin


Kenyon, Barnet
Perry, S. F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Kirkwood, D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Toole, J.


Lansbury, George
Phillipps, Vivian
Tout, W. J.


Laverack, F. J.
Pilkington, R. R.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Law, A.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Turner, Ben


Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)
Potts, John S.
Varley, Frank B.


Lawson, John Jamas
Purcell, A. A.
Viant, S. P.


Leach. W.
Raffety, F. W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Lee, F.
Raynes, W. R.
Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)


Linfield, F. C.
Rea, W. Russell
Warne, G. H.


Livingstone, A. M.
Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Loverseed, J. F.
Richards, R.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lowth, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Lunn, William
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.


McCrae, Sir George
Robertson, T. A.
Westwood, J.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


McEntee, V. L.
Romeril, H. G.
Whiteley, W.


Macfadyen, E.
Rose, Frank H.
Wignall, James


Mackinder, W.
Royle, C.
Williams, A. (York, W.R., Sowerby)


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Scrymgeour, E.
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Maden, H.
Scurr, John
Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kenningtn.)


March, S.
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)
Williams, Maj. A. S.(Kent, Sevenoaks)


Marley, James
Sexton, James
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, E.)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Willison, H.


Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)
Sherwood, George Henry
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Shinwell, Emanuel
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Maxton, James
Short, Alfred (Wednesday)
Windsor, Walter


Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.
Smille, Robert
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Middleton, G.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wright, W.


Millar, J. D.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Mitchell, R. M.(Perth & Kinross, Perth)
Snell, Harry



Montague, Frederick
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Morris, R. H.
Spence, R.
Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. Allen


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Parkinson.


Question, "That the Committee withdraw immediately," put, and agreed to.

The Chairman then proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put severally the Questions, That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the several Glasses of the Civil Services Estimates and of the other outstanding Votes, including Supplementary Estimates, and the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Navy, Army, Air and Revenue Departments, be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1924–25.

Class I.

"That a sum, not exceeding £1,518,536, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

£


1.
Royal Palaces
71,185


2.
Osborne
10,795


3.
Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens
132,335


4.
Houses of Parliament Buildings
51,640


5.
Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain
54,435


6.
Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain (Supplementary sum)
10


7.
Diplomatic and Consular Buildings (Supplementary sum)
25,850


10.
Public Building. Great Britain (Supplementary sum)
15,000


10A.
House Building
5


10B.
Housing Schemes
5,110


11.
Surveys of Great Britain
99,750


12.
Peterhead Harbour
21,000


13.
Rates on Government Property
951,281


14.
Works and Buildings in Ireland
80,140




£1,518,536 "

Class II.

"That a sum, not exceeding £5,221,680, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class 11 of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

£


1.
House of Lords Offices
29,103


2.
House of Commons
209,813


3.
Treasury and Subordinate Departments
196,495


4.
Home Office
206,072


7.
India Office
80,000


8.
Privy Council Office
6,906


10.
Department of Overseas Trade
200,282


11.
Mercantile Marine Services
231,321


12.
Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade
5


13.
Mines Department of the Board of Trade
110,929


14.
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
768,138


15.
Forestry Commission (including a Supplementary sum of £275,000)
393,000


16.
Ministry of Transport
86,633


17.
Charity Commission
29,268


18.
Government Chemist
36,600


19.
Civil Service Commission
43,947


20.
Exchequer and Audit Department
98,100


21.
Friendly Societies Registry
30,995


22.
Government Actuary
28,916


23.
Board of Control, England
291,932


24.
The Mint, including Coinage
350,000


25.
National Debt Office
11,654


26.
Public Record Office
23,816


27.
Public Works Loan Commission
5


28.
Registrar-General's Office, England
57,429


29.
State Management Districts
90


30.
Stationery and Printing
899,481


31.
Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenue
17,430


32.
Office of Works and Public Buildings
379,120


33.
Secret Service
105,000


34.
Privy Seal Office Scotland.
4,200


35.
Secretary for Scotland's Office
173,916


37.
Fishery Board
45,410


38.
General Board of Control
42,215


39.
Registrar-General's Office Ireland.
10,379


40.
Northern Ireland Services
26,080




£5,221,680"

Class III.

"That a sum, not exceeding £5,939,552, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925,
for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

£


1.
Law Charges
137,237


2.
Miscellaneous Legal Expenses
23,983


3.
Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.
255,438


4.
Land Registry
63,918


5.
Public Trustee
5


6.
County Courts
25,487


7.
Police, England and Wales
3,065,336


8.
Prisons, England and Wales
621,492


9.
Reformatory and Industrial Schools, England and Wales
194,750


10.
Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum Scotland.
52,181


11.
Law Charges and Courts of Law
87,570


12.
Scottish Land Court
6,496


13.
Register House, Edinburgh
51,000


14.
Police
400,200


15.
Prisons
107,377


16.
Reformatory and Industrial Schools Ireland.
57,119


17.
Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ireland
33,120


18.
Land Purchase Commission, Northern Ireland
756,840




£5,939,552"

Class IV.

"That a sum, not exceeding £1,217,983, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charges which will coma in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

£


1.
Board of Education (Supplementary Vote)
10


2.
British Museum
181,793


3.
National Gallery
14,497


4.
National Portrait Gallery
5,823


5.
Wallace Collection
7,743


6.
London Museum
3,140


7.
Imperial War Museum
9,380


8.
Scientific Investigation, etc.
113,450


9.
Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
203,281


10.
Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales
672,970



Scotland.



12.
National Galleries
5,896




£1,217,983"

CLASS V.

"That a sum, not exceeding £1,347,678, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

£


1.
Diplomatic and Consular Services
640,178


3.
Oversea Settlement
667,000


5.
Telegraph Subsidy
2,000


6.
League of Nations
38,500




£1,347,678"

CLASS VI.

"That a sum, not exceeding £60,717,308, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in "course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

£


1.
Superannuation and Retired Allowances
793,712


2.
Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc
8,263


3.
Old Ago Pensions (including a Supplementary sum of £2,000,000)
16,201,000


4.
Ministry of Pensions
41,847,810


5.
Merchant Seamen's War Pensions
306,525


6.
Miscellaneous Expenses
5,813


7.
Royal Commissions, etc
28,000


8.
National Savings Committee
54,663


9.
Imperial War Graves Commission
854,500


10.
Repayments to the Local Loans Fund
105,200


11.
Expenses under the Representation of the People Act
206,000


12.
Development Fund
150,000


13.
British Empire Exhibition
1,000


14.
Mission of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to South Africa
13,000


15.
Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust
100,000


16.
Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund
41,822




£60,717,308"

CLASS VII.

"That a sum, not exceeding £14,506,195, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

£


1. Ministry of Health
12,486,861


2. Scottish Board of Health
1,897,832


4. National Insurance, Audit Department
115,160


5. Friendly Societies' Deficiency
6,342



£14,506,195"

UNEMPLOYMENT GRANTS.

"That a sum, not exceeding £445,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1925, for Grants to Local Authorities, etc., in Great Britain for assistance in carrying out approved Schemes of useful work to relieve Unemployment."

RELIEF OF UNEMPLOYMENT.

"That a sum, not exceeding £1,385,000; be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for Relief arising out of Unemployment, including a Grant-in-Aid."

EXPORT CREDITS.

"That a sum, not exceeding £120,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, to provide for guarantees in respect of Exports of goods wholly or partly produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom."

COMPENSATION (IRELAND).

"That a sum, not exceeding £1,988,500, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for Compensation for Criminal Injuries, including advances on account of prospective awards, advances in respect of Rent and other sums payable under the Land Act, 1923, of the Irish Free State, Grants
to Refugees for the Relief of Distress, ex-gratia Grants awarded in respect of Damage to Property sustained during the Rebellion in Ireland in 1916, Compensation for Damage in the Irish Free State done by Crown Forces, other than Military Forces, in the exercise of the Prerogative of the Crown in the Defence of the Realm or the Restoration of Order in Ireland, and Compensation to certain former Officers of Local Authorities in the Irish Free State."

SHIPPING LIQUIDATION

"That a sum, not exceeding £5, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for the Salaries and Expenses in connection with Shipping Liquidation."

RAILWAY AND CANAL (WAR) AGREEMENTS LIQUIDATION.

"That a sum, not exceeding £98,500, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, to meet Expenditure arising from the Government Control of Railways and Canals in Great Britain and Ireland under the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871. Section 16, and Defence of the Realm (Consolidation) Regulations, 9H."

COAL MINES DEFICIENCY.

"That a sum, not exceeding £300,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, to provide for the Deficiency arising under the Coal Mines Control Agreement (Confirmation) Act, 1918, and for Payments to the Coal Mines (Emergency) Act Account under the Coal Mines (Emergency) Acts, 1920 and 1921."

PRIZE CLAIMS.

"That a sum, not exceeding £35,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for Claims in, respect of Ships or Cargoes condemned as Naval Prize or detained and certain Salaries for advisory Duties."

GRANTS FOR COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE BY ENEMY ACTION.

"That a sum, not exceeding £950,000 (including a Supplementary sum of
£800,000), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for Grants in respect of Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action."

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1924–25.

"That a sum, not exceeding £37,861,904, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:—

£


1.
Customs and Excise
2,940,000


2.
Inland Revenue
3,840,804


3.
Post Office
31,081,100




£37,861,904 "

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1924–25.

"That a sum, not exceeding £10,105,000. be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, namely:—

£


5.
Educational Services
341,800


6.
Scientific Services
440,000


7.
Royal Naval Reserves
491,500


11.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
856,100


13.
Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Officers
2,884,300


14.
Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), men
4,253,500


15.
Civil Superannuation, Compensation, Allowances, and Gratuities
837,800




£10,105,000 "

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1923–24.

"That a sum, not exceeding £27,000,100, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charges for Army Services, including Army (Ordnance Factories), which will come in course or payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, in respect of an estimated
net total cost of £45,894,000, and of liabilities outstanding on the first day of the year."

AIR FORCE ESTIMATES, 1924–25.

"That a sum, not exceeding £2,291,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Force Services, namely:—

£


5.
Medical Services
195,000


6.
Educational Services
480,000


7.
Auxiliary and Reserve Forces
284,000


8.
Civil Aviation
355,000


9.
Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services
134,000


10.
Air Ministry
710,000


11.
Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non-Effective Services
133,000




£2,291,000 "

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Resolved,

"That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, the sum of £246,645,519 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. W. Graham.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — IRISH FREE STATE (LOAN GUARANTEE).

Resolution reported,

"That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to guarantee the payment of the principal of and the interest on any loan issued by the Government of the Irish Free State for the purposes of land purchase in
the Irish Free State, so that the securities so guaranteed do not in the aggregate exceed thirty million pounds sterling in nominal amount, and to charge on the Consolidated Fund any moneys required to fulfil any such guarantee."

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Thomas, Mr. William Graham and Mr. Snowden.

Orders of the Day — IRISH FREE STATE (LOAN GUARANTEE) BILL,

"to authorise the Treasury to guarantee a loan to be raised by the Government of the Irish Free State for the purposes of land purchase in that State," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 232.]

Orders of the Day — NAVY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1922–23.

Resolutions reported—

"Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1923, that the aggregate expenditure on Navy Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services over the net expenditure is £7,391,310 9s. 3d., namely:—

£
s.
d.


Total surpluses
8,625,093
2
6


Total deficits
1,233,782
13
3


Net surplus
£7,391,310
9
3

And whereas the deficiencies of Appropriatious-in-Aid realised on certain Votes have been in each case less than the savings on gross expenditure on the same Vote.

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to make good the deficits caused by excess expenditure on other Grants for Navy Services.

1. 'That the application of such sums be sanctioned.'

SCHEDULE.


No. of Vote.
Navy Services,1922–23.Votes.
Deficits.
Surpluses.


Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.
Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines.
50,338
8
6
—
—
144,105
18
4


2
Victualling and Clothing for the Navy.
—
83,580
5
6
1,016,462
11
11
—


3
Medical Services
—
—
4,049
12
1
25,531
15
9


4
Civilians employed on Fleet Services.
—
711
14
7
34,211
17
1
—


5
Educational Services
—
4,018
0
9
32,982
15
9
—


6
Scientific Services
—
12,205
2
2
103,743
13
3
—


7
Royal Naval Reserve, Royal Fleet Reserve, and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, etc.
—
—
118,527
3
4
1,050
10
11


8
Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance etc.:















Sec. 1. Personnel
—
—
590,491
16
4
14,075
7
5



Sec. 2. Material
—
—
1,617,334
14
10
1,768,648
17
4



Sec. 3. Contract Work
703,519
7
2
—
—
812,421
10
7


9
Naval Armaments
—
—
897,318
4
2
488,398
16
8


10
Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad.
—
—
669,253
5
0
49,915
7
0


11
Various Miscellaneous Effective Services.
248,111
5
8
—
—
63,792
2
10


12
Admiralty Office
—
—
46,154
5
7
2,684
16
5


13
Non-Effective Services Naval and Marine) Officers.
101,589
3
3
—
—
6,205
7
10


14
Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Men.
—
—
9,691
9
3
41,820
17
4


15
Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances and Gratuties.
—
—
65,718
19
7
501
5
11


—
Amount written off as irrecoverable.
29,679
5
8
—
—
—




1,133,237
10
3
100,545
3
0
5,205,940
8
2
5,419,152
14
4




Total Deficits
£1,233,782
13
3
Total Surpluses
£8,625,093
2
6




Net Surplus £7,391,310 9 3

Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1923, that the aggregate expenditure on Navy Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services over the net expenditure is £1,912,099 19s. 3d., namely:—

£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
2,565,756
11
7


Total Deficits
653,656
12
4


Net Surplus
£1,912,099
19
3

And whereas the deficiencies of Appropriations-in-Aid realised on certain Votes have been in each case less than the savings on gross expenditure on the same Vote.

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to make good the deficits caused by excess expenditure on other Grants for Navy Services.

2. "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."

SCHEDULE.


 No of. Vote.
Air Services, 1922–23, Votes.
Deficits.
Surpluses.


Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.
Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Pay, etc., of the Air Force
—
172,757
12
7
546,811
4
8
—


2
Quartering, Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transport.
215,078
13
3
—
—
391,850
19
1


3
Technical and Warlike Stores
136,693
15
5
—
—
634,267
8
11


4
Works, Buildings, and Lands
—
—
539,043
1
6
8,676
8
9


5
Air Ministry
—
—
19,512
0
2
528
0
9


6
Miscellaneous Effective Services.
3,477
17
9
—
—
52,350
18
8


7
Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non-Effective Services.
—
943
2
9
59,040
16
10
—


8
Civil Aviation
—
23,405
12
11
78,887
8
7
—


9
Experimental and Research Services.
—
59,696
9
3
234,758
3
8
—



Balances Irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.
11,603
8
5
—
—
—




396,853
14
10
256,802
17
6
1,478,082
15
5
1,087,673
16
2




Total Deficits
£653,656
12
4
Total Surpluses
£2,565,756
11
7




Net Surplus £1,912,099 19 3

Orders of the Day — GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Sandwich, which was presented on the 21st July and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Uttoxeter Gas Works, Limited, which was presented on the 21st July and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of The Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the King's Lynn Gas Company, which was presented on the 21st July and published, be approved, subject to the following modifications:

Clause 42, Sub-Clause (8), line 3, after 'company,' insert 'or a railway committee';

Clause 42, Sub-Clause (8), line 6, after 'company,' insert 'or committee'."—[Mr. A. V. Alexander.]

Orders of the Day — GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.

Resolved,
That the Statement of the estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundation for the year 1924–25 be approved."—[Mr. Hodges.]

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith."—[Mr. Shaw.]

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Before we proceed to consider this Bill. I wish to draw attention to the fact that there are no copies of the Lords Amendments circulated amongst the Members of this House, and there are no copies in the Vote Office. I understand that the reason for requiring the Bill to go through to-night is
because of the large number of unemployed people who will, otherwise, lose benefit. I am not intending to object to the Bill going through to-night, but I hope neither this Government nor any other Government will look upon this as a precedent in the discussion of such an important Measure and the consideration of Lords Amendments to it, without having copies of those Amendments before the House.

Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: This is not the first time that this has occurred. If hon. Members carry back their minds for some years they will remember that more than once this kind of thing has happened. In this case the Amendments are of very great importance. I do not think it is right, however much we desire to get the main part of the Bill, that we should pretend to discuss Amendments of very great importance without having those Amendments before us. Every effort ought to have been made to secure that we should have the Amendments before us, and I think we ought to have a statement from the Government as to the whole position in regard to these very important Amendments.

Mr. J. JONES: Some of those who pretend to be the most revolutionary Members of this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who are they?"] I am not going to mention names; but we ought to have an opportunity of discussing what right the House of Lords have to amend anything.

Viscount CURZON: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make these reflections upon another place at this time a night?

Mr. SPEAKER: The question that hon. Members are putting as to the printing of Amendments has been raised before, and dealt with. The Question before the House now is, "That the Lords Amendment be considered forthwith."

Mr. JONES: I think I have a right to say what I am, because the Amendments to this Bill have not been seen by us in detail, although we have heard them discussed and read of their discussion. The Amendments are practically to put the workers back to where they were before this Bill was passed, and to take from them certain advantages that they will
possess under the Bill. That means that so far as I am concerned as a worker—

Mr. SPEAKER: The Question before the House is, "That the Lords Amendment be considered forthwith."

Mr. B. SMITH: But surely we can have some idea of what these Amendments are? We have read about them in the newspapers. It is very difficult to discuss Amendments which have been passed, but which are not in front of us. I protest against it.

Mr. HAYDAY: Whilst, of course, it may be that we have not the Amendments, I take it that every Member of this House has had the opportunity of obtaining a copy of the Debate in the other House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] These Amendments were discussed and voted upon in another place yesterday, and the Report is available.

Colonel GRETTON: I only want to make one remark. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] It is a very great disadvantage that we should not have Amendments before us which affect the masses of this country—that they are not printed so that every one of us may see and understand them. We are in the position of having to deal with manuscript Amendments, and if it were not for the urgency of getting this Bill through to-night, I should certainly have thought that the consideration of these Amendments might have been postponed until to-morrow. I protest most strongly against the way we are being treated in this matter. As a matter of fact the mismanagement of business in this House does not give the requisite time for the other House to deal with Measures of this kind adequately, with the result that we are hustled, and in some cases we are quite ignorant of what we are being asked to do. I wish to protest against the way business is being done.

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): I think it will be sufficient if I say that this Government has not established any precedent in this matter, and we are in a position which has been very common in the past. The House will very soon be shown that the Amendments with which we have to deal are very few, straightforward and simple, and it will involve very little embarrassment when the House has heard the statements which
will be made. I can assure hon. Members that, with respect to future Amendments, we will see that they are put upon the Paper, and that they are obtainable by hon. Members.

Mr. G. SPENCER: Am I to understand that the Lords Amendments are Amendments of principle? I would also like to ask whether this is a Money Bill or not, and whether the Lords have any right to move Amendments of this character?

Mr. SPEAKER: It will be my duty to deal with that matter on each Amendment.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Rights of insured persons to unemployment benefit.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 2, lines 13 and 14, leave out
he shall nevertheless be entitled to receive benefit.

and insert
the Minister may in his discretion authorise the payment of benefit to the applicant.

Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment appears to be a privileged Amendment, and alters the statutory condition for receiving unemployment benefit.

Amendment disagreed with.

CLAUSE 4.—(Amendments as to disqualifications for receipt of unemployment benefit.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 5, line 18, after "belong," insert
to a trade union which either by itself or through another trade union or a federation or association of trade unions is, or.

Mr. SPEAKER: This again, I think, is a privilege Amendment, as it obviously alters the conditions as to receipt of unemployment benefit.

Amendment disagreed with.

Lords Amendment:

In page 5, line 21, leave out from "dispute" to the end of line 26.

Mr. SPEAKER: The same remark applies also to this Amendment.

Amendment disagreed with.

CLAUSE 8.—(Abolition of power to make special schemes.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 7, line 12, leave out from "affect" to the end of line 1, page 8.

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Amendment as to refunds of contributions.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 9, line 11, leave out from the second "the" to "in" in line 13, and insert
amount of the excess value of the contributions paid by him as increased.

Mr. SHAW: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The intention of this Amendment is to make the language of the Bill more precise.

Lords Amendment:

In page 9, line 14, after "years" insert "by."

Agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In page 10, line 21, after the second " the "insert" amount of the."

Agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In page 10, line 22, after "contributions," insert
as increased by such compound interest as aforesaid (if any).''

Mr. SHAW: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The object of these words is to make clear what are the right, of persons.

CLAUSE 17.—(Short title, repeal, decision of questions, application and commencement.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 15, line 15, at the end, insert a new Sub-section:
(6) The Minister may by Regulations provide for the transition from the provi-
sions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1924, to the provisions of those Acts as amended by this Act.

Mr. SHAW: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This power is necessary in order to make the change from the one Act to the other.

Orders of the Day — THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Enactments Repealed.)

Lords Amendment

In page 20, lines 5 and 6, leave out "Subsections (1), (2), (4)" and insert "Subsection."

Mr. SHAW: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask if this Amendment proposes to bring back into the. Bill the right to establish insurance by industry on the part of any industry that cares to inaugurate such a scheme?

Mr. SHAW: No, that is not the intention of this Amendment at all.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that, in the Act of 1920, these Sections, which it is proposed here to strike out, which were not originally in the Bill, and which it is now proposed to put in, deal exclusively with insurance by industry, and give separate industries the power to inaugurate these schemes? That, at least, is my reading of the Act of 1920, and I should like a further explanation to be given in this House as to why the Government should seek to re-incorporate in the Bill these Clauses which were not in the Bill when it was originally introduced. I think the House is entitled to a further and clearer explanation from the Minister of the reasons why the Government amended this part of the Bill in the other House, and did not amend it here.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): This matter is a very simple one. The House decided, against the wish of the Minister, to retain that Clause in the Bill, and this Amendment is merely consequential upon that Clause having
been retained in the Bill by the vote of the House.

Lords Amendment:

In page 20, line 6, leave out "10 and 11."

Agreed to.

Ordered, "That a appointed to draw up Reasons to he assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill."

Committee nominated of Mr. H. H. Spencer, Sir George McCrae, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Webb, and Mr. Parkinson.

Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Shaw.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee do withdraw immediately."—[Mr. Shaw.]

Sir PHILIP LLOYD-GREAME: On that Motion, may I ask for the guidance of the House on what ground you, Sir, ruled that the three principal Amendments were privileged Amendments. They are Amendments which were discussed here, and go to the whole root of the Bill. This Committee is a Committee which is going to assign reasons why the Amendments were disagreed with. Those reasons, presumably, will include the reasons why the Amendments are considered privileged. [Interruption.] When we require on this side the assistance of the right hon. Gentlemen we will invite it! [HON. MEMBERS "Speak up!"] I am addressing the Chair. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are addressing the House!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: I must insist on silence. It is for me to hear.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAKE: I very respectfully ask whether, in view of the fact that all the Amendments which have been ruled as privileged, and which were the only matters coming up for discussion in the House of Lords, were matters going to the root of the Bill—if all these Amendments are disallowed as privileged, might I ask why the Bill was not certified as a Money Bill with which their Lordships' House could not deal? As I understand your ruling, it is out of the power of another place to deal at all with either the rights of persons under this Bill or the rates of contributions to be paid. That, I submit, was the whole scope of that Bill. Therefore I respectfully submit
that the Bill, if it was outside the competence of the other House, should have been certified.

Mr. SPEAKER: There is frequently some misapprehension on that matter. The question of whether or not a Bill comes under the Parliament Act is one thing. The question of the ancient privilege of this House in money matters is quite a separate thing. When I examined the Bill, I did not feel it my duty to attach my Certificate to it as a Bill coming under the terms of the Parliament Act. On the other hand, these Amendments which have been made by the other House come under the ancient Rule of Privilege—a quite separate and distinct matter. I think I can do best by reading the words of my predecessor on a similar Bill, in 1921—the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, Amendment Bill. My predecessor used these words:
According to the precedents. the Lords are not entitled, where a sum of public money is involved? to alter the conditions (either by way of limiting them or by way of increasing them) under which such moneys become payable to those who are entitled to receive them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1921; col. 2066, Vol. 138.]
These are the words used by my predecessor, and I adopt them as my own.

Lord HUGH CECIL: I understand your ruling, or rather your advice to the House,
is that these Amendments are a breach of the privileges of the House because they seek to regulate the way public money should be spent, and not because they seek to make an increase in the amount to be spent. Would it have been open to any hon. Member to suggest that the privilege of the House should be waived in such a matter?

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes; the question whether the House agrees or disagrees is open to debate. There is no Motion actually to waive the privilege of the House, but it is on certain occasions waived, and, whenever that is done, a special entry is made in the Votes to record the reason why this House has waived its privilege.

The remaining Orders: were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. F. Hall.]

Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.